'A Dark Chapter in History' Explained: Changing Homeowners Covenant to Expunge Racist Rules Wasn't Easy

Nancy Van Huffel is the administrator for the. She wrote this piece in response to a Feb. 28 column titled

By Nancy Van Huffel

 I am very reluctant to submit any article to the Patch at this point.  In my opinion, many of the comments and articles that have been written on the are of the National Enquirer caliber.  *

Yes, the developers of San Lorenzo were guilty of including a race restriction covenant in the original set of Conditions, Covenant, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) in 1945.  They, along with thousands of other homeowners associations, mistakenly believed this restriction would help protect property values.  Of course, the fact is this discriminatory covenant is offensive and since the '50s, thankfully, illegal. However, that does not make it any less objectionable.

In order to change our CCRs we are required to have a 75 percent “yes” vote of all homes in the tract, which, under normal conditions,  is almost an impossible task.  And, to make matters more complicated, our association has more than 45 tracts, which would mean separate elections for each tract.   Fortunately, the State Legislature recognized this difficulty and in 1987, as part of the Davis-Stirling Act, included clause Civil Code §1356, which allowed associations to petition the courts to amend their CC&Rs.

 In order to amend the CC&Rs, the association had to first make a reasonable and a diligent effort to encourage all eligible members to vote on the proposed amendment(s). In 1989, the Association Board of Directors appointed a committee to review the CC&Rs and make suggestions for changes, including removing this prejudicial and offensive clause.  There were several town meetings, plus a survey was sent to all homeowners for their input.  As a result, we were able to identify 10 amendments that members wanted to change or eliminate, including eliminating the race restriction clause.

 For the next six months, the board made every effort to encourage members to vote on these provisions.  Saturday after Saturday, the board, committee members and I walked the Village asking people to vote on these provisions.  In spite of all these efforts, with one exception, we were only able to obtain a 55 to 65 percent vote.  Thus, the board directed me to petition the courts for amendments to the CC&Rs.

   One homeowner, who had recently lost a court action to dissolve the association, decided to oppose our petition.  Long story short, the Superior Court judge decided not to change most of the proposed 10 amendments.  On the race restriction clause, the judge indicated, much to our disappointment,  that since it was already against the law, we did not need to eliminate it from the CC&Rs.

 Since we were not successful the association attached a cover sheet to all CC&Rs given to all new residents and anyone else requesting them.  The language, in red, stated:  “If this document contains any restriction based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, marital status, disability, national origin, or ancestry, that restriction violates State and Federal Fair Housing Laws and is void.  Any person holding an interest in this property may request that the county recorder remove the restrictive covenant language pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 12956.1 of the Government Code.”

In 1994, a resident complained to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) about the restrictive clause.  In consulting with our attorney, everyone agreed that we can and should simply eliminate the racial restriction clause, and if the membership didn’t approve, they could in turn sue the association for removing the clause.   This was done, and a letter was sent out to all members informing them this clause was removed.

I have worked under the direction of many board members over the 23 years I have been here.  With one or two exceptions, the homeowners who have served on this board have been very dedicated to the goals of the majority of the community.  They are team players who interact with the other board members to accomplish the goals of the residents.  They spend numerous hours on committees, board meetings and homeowner activities.  

For the past few years, most of our board members have “staffed” the Farmers Market every Saturday. I am saddened to see a few disgruntled members constantly complain about what our boards have not accomplished.  I would ask these folks that are quick to condemn the association for discrimination, how active were they 20 years ago when many of us put in countless hours pushing the membership to eliminate this clause?  How many clean up days have they come to? How many committees have they volunteered for and how many member events do they attend or help out with?

 Since I have been here, our board has always had public comments on the association’s monthly agenda.  I don’t recall anyone ever suggesting a positive idea that wasn’t subsequently discussed by any of our boards.  It is my hope that after this , we can go back to being concerned with helping our community move forward socially, economically and politically to assure its rightful leadership place in central Alameda County as a strong, vibrant community. 

*An earlier version of this article mistakenly asserted that the SLOHA was not contacted by Patch about this matter. They were. Patch regrets this error.