Yurt Association Law: Developer v. Association Attorneys
Brian P. McLean, Leahy.ps
In Washington State, there’s a palpable and sometimes hostile split between attorneys who represent developers and attorneys who represent owner associations (particular construction defect attorneys). (As for attorneys who represent owner associations in construction defect claims only, their interests are singular in nature.) The purported polarization between developer attorneys and association attorneys is an old debate dressed and propped up in a new fact pattern.
For example, I would refer you to C.P. Snow’s landmark book, “The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution” (1959), where he posits that society is split into two polar groups: literary intellectuals and physical scientists. He writes, “Between the two a gulf of mutual incomprehension-sometimes (particularly among the young) hostility and dislike, but most of all lack of understanding. They have a curious distorted image of each other. Their attitudes are so different that, even on the level of emotion, they can’t find much common ground.”
Socrates and Aristotle had their differences, too, which we still debate today. As for me, I am trying to develop a new body of legal theory related to “Yurt Owner Associations” that ends the schism, increases homeowner satisfaction, substantially reduces uncertainty related to platting, legal descriptions, assessment authority, etc. Imagine a world where there are no property lines and we can live off the land like nomads. An ownership society tent city. With the right kind of interior lighting created by manageable “yurt” fires, yurt owners can enjoy both an Aristotelian peripatetic idiom as well as the flickering shadows on the [yurt] wall that so delighted and puzzled Socrates.
