reply to JC

No, owning a property for sale is no conflict but Nadine Smith stood to profit from her working relationship with Steve Lange who was then president of the association because they met together with city officials about the sale of her land to the CVS project and the transfering of units density from her property to other land in Northshore for a possible new project she would be involved with developing. Can't fault her for
trying to make a profit and all that.

Can fault Mr. Lange for being involved in this while serving as president because it directly affected
many homeowners who he was supposed to represent.

Let me explain this. If Nadine Smith, or anybody else wants to sell property for a profit to anybody that's their right. But such a person should not ask to be director of a codes sweep of part of NS when they themselves are in gross violation and when what they are really doing is looking for distressed properties to buy up.

Again, Lange chose to associate himself with this person. he could have said no to her. But he advocated her position.

Now if Mr. Lange is working with a client- let us be hypothetical here- at about Locust & 14th Avenue- and he profits from his expertise as an architect- no problem. he has improved a property which then helps the whole neighborhood too.

But if Mr. Lange works with CVS ( a big developer) which is for sure going to affect the value of surrounding homes negatively, then that is wrong. Even if he thinks the development is good for the neighborhood he cannot make that decision FOR the neighborhood. In that case, he should have again walked away or quit the board or informed the board and/
or the members. Tough case- yes- but conflict too. Can't do both.

All this is also predicated by the Eckerd proposal on the same sight
a year or so earlier which Lange really opposed very publicly. So all the people living around there figured
he would not support a big project, much less conceal its existence from them for six months.

We are talking about scale and impact here, two of Lange's favorite
development terms.

Your argument that no board members should stand to profit from their association with NSNA is too broad. Take lange- he will profit on occasion by being hired by NS homeowners who need his expertise and recognize his skills. No problem unless there is a variance or something in which case he should disclose the relationship and not vote on it.

Any board member has the potential to profit from being on the board just like anybody on a charity board might get business from meeting other people in that organization.

If people in the neighborhood see Mr. Lasinger at meetings and like the way he handles himself and then hire him as their attorney its not a problem. It is only a problem if he was representing a big development or something that would directly affect the neighborhood. Or again if there is a variance or something he should disclose.

Do you get it? Mr. Lange or Mr. Lasinger or Ms So & So are not going to rely on their board positions to make a living or they probably couldn't afford to live here.

Still A Conflict!

Agree with alot of your text.

As i have already said, i do not believe Lange suggested Nadine Smith for the board.

AND

No one should have any code violations.
Do you think i disagree with that!
I do not know, and do not want to get involved with your accusation about Nadine Smith. I don't believe Lange advocated either for or against Nadine Smith.

I want you to think about your example about board members doing business in North Shore. I think we are agreeing with each other even if we do not want to.

If Lange is representing someone in North Shore as an Architect, and that person wants a variance, which they very often need, Lange will not have the privilege to disclose his clients variance request to the board prior to the public notice required by the City.

That in itself is a very good example why Lange should not be a member of the NSNA board!

This pertains to the rest of the board members, if they want to do business in North Shore.

Your big complaint as well as many others peoples complaint, was that Lange did not disclose what he knew as soon as he knew it. He could not then, and he and other members of the board can not now.

Lane Lastinger and Greg Burton would loose their ability to practice Law and Sell Real Estate if they disclosed the type of information you have in your example.

You and board members, can not have it both ways.

Am i making any sense, or am i off base?

I would like to avoide all of this for everyone in the future.

Restricting the actions of board members is a good first step.

By JC

TO JC re: Hitler

I find your reference to Hitler in incredibly bad taste to such an extent that it negates anything else you might have to say. You are obviously very angry and insensitive. NO ONE in this entire mess should be compared to Hitler and by doing this you have demeaned yourself. I would like to see an immediate apology for this analogy. It is offensive to anyone who is not a WASP and to any civilized person, WASP or not.

By SLJ

Reply to SLJ

The use of the Hitler name was wrong. Since it offended you, I appologise to you and anyone else it may have offended. I used that name because it was the best example of how a person should not act that I could think of.

Maybe using Newt Gingrich as an example would have accomplished the same goal. The problem is I do not know how to spell his name.

By JC