Gentlemen,
Contrary to claims, I and others have posed questions concerning the reasoning behind the covenant changes, but we have received no real answers and our questions have mostly been ignored. Since the Board and CCC is to represent the property owners, we are at a loss as to why our questions went unanswered.
As to trust and only electing those that represent us, in 2005 the covenants was attempted to be changed by the Board by the adoption of new by-laws. The adopted by-laws changed the existing covenants without property owner approval and in direct violation of the existing covenants (Mr. Mounsey was Vice President). This is why there always needs to be checks and balances by the property owners.
While I could continue to address each point raised, I can say that I have been receiving phone calls from persons concerned over the same issues I have concerns about.
Some supported the proposals only because Mr. Cerrillo's letter implied that we may not have an HOA unless the proposal was passed and ''failure to approve would leave us without any protection''. As Mr. Cerrillo recently stated, this is not true. If enough owners supported the proposal based on this language, then I suggest the voting may be declared invalid.
I have always assumed each of the Board and CCC members are sincere in your intentions, even if I could not understand the reasoning, but I also take the stance that you represent us and the need is to build informed consensus among the property owners.
That is normally a long road and when I have served on committees based on this premise, it has sometimes taken up to 3 years to make effective and supportive changes. In the long haul, it has been worth it because we then had the support of the majority based on them being informed.
I wish all the Board members a great Holiday and success in the new year.
Sincerely,
Jim Higerd
By Jim
Contrary to claims, I and others have posed questions concerning the reasoning behind the covenant changes, but we have received no real answers and our questions have mostly been ignored. Since the Board and CCC is to represent the property owners, we are at a loss as to why our questions went unanswered.
As to trust and only electing those that represent us, in 2005 the covenants was attempted to be changed by the Board by the adoption of new by-laws. The adopted by-laws changed the existing covenants without property owner approval and in direct violation of the existing covenants (Mr. Mounsey was Vice President). This is why there always needs to be checks and balances by the property owners.
While I could continue to address each point raised, I can say that I have been receiving phone calls from persons concerned over the same issues I have concerns about.
Some supported the proposals only because Mr. Cerrillo's letter implied that we may not have an HOA unless the proposal was passed and ''failure to approve would leave us without any protection''. As Mr. Cerrillo recently stated, this is not true. If enough owners supported the proposal based on this language, then I suggest the voting may be declared invalid.
I have always assumed each of the Board and CCC members are sincere in your intentions, even if I could not understand the reasoning, but I also take the stance that you represent us and the need is to build informed consensus among the property owners.
That is normally a long road and when I have served on committees based on this premise, it has sometimes taken up to 3 years to make effective and supportive changes. In the long haul, it has been worth it because we then had the support of the majority based on them being informed.
I wish all the Board members a great Holiday and success in the new year.
Sincerely,
Jim Higerd
By Jim
