Citizens for Justice, Inc. [CCFJ] surveyed owners of residences
in deed-restricted communities in Florida in August Ė October
of 2012. The survey
elicited respondentsí views about ten  possible
legislative reforms for Home Owners Associations.
450 usable responses were received and analyzed.
Responses which were anonymous or failed to provide an
answer to any of the 10 key questions were rejected.
Duplicate responses also were rejected.
CCFJís secretary, Dr. David Goldenberg, entered the
data into a standard database, then analyzed it and produced
in brackets [#] in the reportís tables refer readers to a set
of footnotes at the end of this report.
basic statistical tools were used to analyze the data in order
to extract as much information as possible for decision making.
Those techniques also are explained in the footnotes.
Table 1 shows that all ten  reforms are very highly
desired. The lowest
rating of YES votes was 84.7% in favor of paying a $4 annual fee
for an effective HOA regulatory agency.
The highest value was 95.4% in favor of better rules for
turning over or ending developer control of HOAs to allow residents
to determine their own
governance practices. Another test
revealed that the order
of asking the 10 key questions did not influence the size of the pro and con
ratings for those issues.
In the survey at hand thereís less than one chance in a
million that Florida residents in deed-restricted communities
actually are neutral on any of the ten issues according to the
t-tests. A huge majority of residents in deed-restricted
communities in Florida clearly desire every one of the proposed
these results definitely are not the whim of a vocal minority. Samples
are drawn from populations and data from the sample are used to
estimate the views of the population as a whole.
Statistical analyses enable one to estimate the odds that
the population from which a sample was drawn really differs from
the sample values or, in other words, that the sample
misrepresents the nature of the population.
FINDINGS FROM TABLE 1)
 traits of respondents and seven  traits of their
communities were used to enhance understanding of the analytic
respondent traits were:
or arenít a community association manager [C.A.M.],
a woman or a man,
or arenít a CCFJ member,
full-time or part-time resident,
or havenít served or are or are not presently serving on an
associationís board of
or did not make a comment.
2-A for details.
FINDINGS FROM TABLE 2-A)
analysis indicated that residents who had served
or were serving on a communityís board of directors held notably different views
from those respondents who had not done so.
seven  community traits considered were:
of community [HOA vs. CONDO],
of the state where the community is located [north, central,
west coast, east coast and south],
of the community [small, that is less than 500 lots, vs. large,
that is at least 500 lots],
does or doesnít control the board,
CAM is or isnít used,
is or isnít a 55+ age restriction, and
are or arenít allowed. Statistical
analysis indicated that very subtrait was notably
different and important in practice.
for details. (See KEY
FINDINGS FROM TABLE 2-B)
Table 3 sorts and summarizes the 164 comments made.
FROM TABLE 3)
and analyze the comments by community traits, and respondent
traits, respectively. (See
Key Findings from TABLE
4-A and TABLE
ten  issues and 14 traits, 140 cross-tabulations might be
amenable to analysis via Chi-squared test.
A Chi-squared test would indicate whether or not a given
trait influenced the answer to a particular key question.
For example, do small and large communities have
meaningful different views about the desirability of a proposed
change in the law?
Only four  or 2.9% of the ratings of the issues
almost certainly were influenced by a trait of their communities. Moreover,
those four issues were in the top five of most desired reforms.
Where a respondent trait,
board service or non-service, influenced the votes for or
against three different issues, namely, turnover of control, a
regulatory agency and bank liability. Two
traits, region where a community was located and whether or not
the community employed a CAM, influenced the votes for or against
reforming the eligibility rules for board service.
results imply that it would be quite misleading to draw any
conclusion(s) about the population of residents in Florida
deed-restricted communities just
from a given region or using a CAM or those with past/present
board service since only two community traits [region and use of
CAM] and one trait of respondents [past/present board service]
sometimes matter. Conversely, the size of a community, its
type [HOA vs. Condo], control by a developer, 55+ restriction,
or allowing pets didnít impact the votes on the issues of
interest. Nor did the other respondent traits matter, that
is ó full-time vs. part-time residency, gender, CCFJ
membership, being an attorney or being a CAM or making a
[Note well: the community trait of employing a CAM is not
the same as the respondent trait of being a CAM.]
24.3% of the 140 possible cross-tabulations had too small a
value in a cell, that is ó less than 5, to calculate a
reliable Chi-Square value to use in testing for the presence or
absence of a relationship.
Chi-Square tests of the 102 or 72.9% of remaining
cross-tabulations found no credible relationship between an
issue and a trait.
RESULTS IN PERCENTAGES