American Homeowners Resource Center

Background

The American Homeowners Resource Center (AHRC) is the 800 pound gorilla of anti-HOA sites, and as such spends most of its time jumping up and down, making noise, resulting only in the attraction of more fleas.  Using sophisticated technology and editing posts to push their message, this site is the most highly ranked among the "True Believer" sites.  Of course, it helps when you re-send every complaint out as a "news" item, leave them posted for years, and re-cycle old  posts to the front of your web site.  Agree with their mantra and your posts and comments get visibility.  Challenge or question the party line and you get edited, deleted or blasted, (or all three). 

If you see their "News" page, it will have a few posts that are relatively recent, but as you go down the news headlines, the dates suddenly become two years old.  They have some favorite people and organizations that they like to regularly berate, and so these stories become almost permanent fixtures on their "News" page. The "Breaking News" in the right hand column suffers from the same lack of breaking news, but manages to keep the same nasty, biased writings near the top, no matter how old they are.

The majority of the site is given over to any piece of garbage it can find to abase community associations, the volunteers that are elected to govern them, the professionals who work for them and the organizations that work with them.  In other words, any one other than the owners who write to them about being angry at their association.

The problem is that legitimate news sources pick up their garbage, and without checking, simply quote it, which gives it legs around the internet and in news circles.  But it's not news.  It is one-sided opinion, with no actual independent reporting, investigation or writing.  It is propaganda, pure and simple.

People behind it

The web site is apparently owned and operated by Californian's Arnold and Elizabeth McMahon.  They have a number of people who are titled "Editors" who help manage the site.  Ms. McMahon has a long history with both the legislature and the courts of California, but her personal story or history is not what this site is about, so we will refer tp her in the same manner she refers to those who oppose her -    If you also notice a decidedly low opinions of courts, it could have to do with Ms. McMahon's first hand experiences.  The "Editors" are basically those who lead and encourage the ranting and when things get slow add a few more of their own, think Himmler and Goebbels.

The editor most often appearing is Jan Jackson, from Colorado.  Jan is a discussion board killer.  There is no discussion.  If you don't agree with her, you're obviously an idiot, but not beneath contempt, as she will point out to you.  When asked by one of her arch enemies, CAI, to state her positions and beliefs for an article they were writing, her response was indicative of her attitude: "The only words any HOA/CIC homeowner needs to speak to any CAI member are the following: YOU CAN GO STRAIGHT TO HELL, AND YOU CAN TAKE ALL OF YOUR SOCIETALLY AND FINANCIALLY DESTRUCTIVE POWER-AND-MONEY SEEKING CAI LAWYER BUDDIES WITH YOU!!!!!"  Any site that gives this person the title of editor is not a "publishing" site, it's not even an "advocacy" site.....it's a site run to allow jerks to say whatever they want and get away with it.  If you hate everything she hates, then you're obviously a "fellow traveler" and True Believer and nice words will follow.  Here is Jan in action:

First she brings up murdering board members, then dissolving the association and then suing the board members, none of which answers the person's question.  Jan never bothers with the questions, she already has all the answers.  I'd like to say she's hit a new low, but their is no "bottom" for Jan, she just keeps going lower and lower.

Jan got smacked by a Colorado judge for libeling the board of directors of her association.  The judge didn't think much of her case or her attitude.  Read the decision

Examples of their work

Example 1

Here is the headline, in large red print, that appeared September 29, 2006:

If you read that, what would you think?  That the Federal government was investigating HOA towing practices?  Your next question might be "Why would the Federal government be involved in this type of thing?"  The answer is that they're NOT.  Here is what the actual letter said:

"I am a Federal Auditor for an Inspector General.

I am privately researching the structure, rules, regulations, and the rights of the Homeowner Association and its members in the Second Iron Gate Community, Manassas Virginia.

Can you direct me to resources (including point of contacts) that would assist in my research?" (Emphasis added)

Notice AHRC conveniently edited out the part where the author indicates that he is privately researching the issue.  The government isn't involved at all,  but that's not what is implied in the headline. 

Example 2

I'll let you read this exchange first:

Basically, if you don't toe the party line, your opinion will first be edited, then slammed and finally removed, as the writer's  original post was.  The key is the line: "Discussion Forums are for people have a genuine commitment to the rights of homeowners."  Differing opinions, no matter how considered or thought out, can be "fixed".  That means this is not a "publishing" site, nor are these "Discussion Boards".   Notice the paranoia---because you didn't agree with our people in Texas, you're a CAI spy.  What's worse, you're a stranger, therefore automatically suspect.  God forbid that some writer actually put forward a well thought-out opinion....

"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength"

Example 3  (The Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity approach to "fair and balanced" reporting)

Here's a letter entitled "A Bird's Eye View of America's Homeowner Associations  A Guide to Writers and Journalists

Karl Rove would be thrilled. 

Example 4  (AHRC - the "Swift Boat Veterans" of community associations)

Why use facts (or even bother to make them up), or any supporting evidence when you can just hurl accusations and epithets around and get away with it.  Examples:

lines their own pockets

forces homeowners to finance lawsuits that they purposely manufacture

conceals these lawsuits, legal fees and settlements from the owners

bribe politicians and civil servants, and create incestuous relationships with judges

one armed bandits that are rigged through the legislative process

Foreclosure lobby group floods Georgia libraries with homeowner assocaition (sic) propaganda

CAI Lawyers Cookin' Fraud

Egregious, flagrant, continuous threats in vivid, gut-wrenching detail with no legal merit by CAI attorney

and so on

---

"All active mass movements strive, therefore, to interpose a fact-proof screen between the faithful and the realities of the world. They do this by claiming that the ultimate and absolute truth is already embodied in their doctrine and that there is no truth or certitude outside of it.  The facts on which the true believer bases his conclusions must not be derived from experience or observation but from holy writ.

Our opinion (at least we label it an opinion)

This site sets the standard and tone for many of the others.  Its not a "publishing" site as it claims, its heavy-handed editing of other people's comments shows that free thought and discussion is not one of their strong points.  Its not an "advocacy" site either, since it basically is against just about everything and rarely comes up with anything even they would support.  What it is, is a rant site---a place to vent your spleen when you're mad.  Writers get to feel good when the site's editors and commentators tell them its all someone else's fault.  It doesn't fix anything, it doesn't even check or ask to see if you're telling the truth.  If you say you hate your HOA, that's all you need to join their little club.  Throw in the phrase "CAI foreclosure attorney" and you're note is guaranteed prominent placement.

The site is also starting to draw the usual whack jobs who see conspiracies everywhere, at least everywhere they've failed to have things their way. 

What you won't see on AHRC

• Both sides of any dispute or issue
• Reasoned discussion of an issue
• Anything good about an HOA, manager or attorney
• A dissenting opinion that isn't derided
• Anything worth reading

Additional AHRC "Low's"