For some who may be new to Greenshire, or were never able to learn what actually happened when the wall issue first took life in 2007/08, here is how it unfolded. The fury started in late 2007 when homeowners with a brick perimeter wall on their property began receiving notices from the HOA to repair their wall – in this case “their” was the homeowner. As many of you remember tempers were almost out of control at the following HOA annual meeting. Pond paid “our” attorney $900.00 to come to the meeting and convince everyone of wall ownership. The attorney was unprepared and blown out of the water. Pond reluctantly established a “wall committee” to study the issue and make recommendations. I headed that committee and attended every board meeting for months to keep the board up to date and try to find a workable solution for maintaining the wall.
For the first couple of board meetings there was a significant turnout from the community of both people with a wall and people who did not have one but appreciated the fact it existed. The individual who wanted to pin sole responsibility of wall maintenance on the homeowner where the wall sat was rare but there were a few. Most of them lived on the greenbelt and enjoyed each of you paying for its landscape and maintenance but they wanted nothing to do with helping out anyone else. The crowd decreased over time because it became obvious Pond was not going to allow the Board to do anything which would promote the HOA’s interest in taking responsibility of the wall. This was in spite of the following important but not all inclusive points:
(1) The wall was built by developers prior to the homes being built. The wall was built on a non-access easement to keep it out of control of the homeowner on whose lot it sat. This was to prevent homeowners from tearing down, modifying, adding gates, or any other changes which might detract from the wall’s purpose. No homeowner, absolutely zero, signed for ownership of the wall in their housing contract or was it ever mentioned to any of them they might one day be responsible for it.
(2) The original Greenshire developer, Mark Vaughan, indicated the wall was suppose to have been included in the covenants as part of the Association’s responsibility, exactly as the greenbelt, but was overlooked. He further stated that many of the sections built by subsequent contractors were substandard and he knew immediately it was only a matter of time before they began to collapse.
(3) The wall committee developed several scenarios by which the wall could be repaired with minimal cost to the members. One of those plans called for a 5 to 10 dollar increase in annual dues to support the wall repair over a several year period beginning with the worst sections first. Contractors bids were obtained by the committee and presented and ignored by the Board. Had that proposal been adopted, I would submit all the bad sections of wall would now be repaired in a standardized fashion and the amount of money out of pocket for the membership would have been inconsequential.
(4) The wall serves the entire community, not just those on whose lot it sits. It offers allure and value to all homeowners and provides an enticement to attract potential home buyers to any point behind the wall. It also provides a small degree of security and it serves to reduce the traffic noise levels from the constant traffic of 3009 and Woodland Oaks.
Pond would entertain none of the numerous proposals made or acknowledge the wall committee’s findings. Finally, at a meeting with only three board members present, of which one he controlled, he read a three page diarrhea laden document which said nothing but from which we were suppose to draw the conclusion that the HOA did not own the wall, the city did not own the wall, and therefore the homeowner owned the wall, and he closed the matter and the committee was disbanded.
But he still could not legally pin the ownership of the wall on the homeowner so he decided to have a rewrite of the covenants and slip in a paragraph declaring wall ownership. Most of you had no idea what was going on or what was actually behind the rewrite, and, without knowledge of what was being covertly accomplished, probably thought it was a good idea. A bone was thrown to the wall homeowners with a paragraph stating the HOA would cover half the cost of wall repair “when funds were available”. Seriously? Have you ever read through our financial statements. They are zeroed out. Debits equal credits. Where is that surplus going to come from and if we have had some in the past, where did it go and why wasn’t it returned to the members?
Pond’s primary objection to any of the committee’s proposals was very simple. He made it very clear he was not going to pay anything out of his pocket to repair walls and he would not consider any dues increase to do so. Of course a short time later he did raise the dues but that was to cover additional landscaping and maintenance costs associated with the traffic islands and greenbelt. He lives on the greenbelt – he does not have a brick wall in his back yard. But he was perfectly legitimate in the dues hike and it was supported by the covenants – the same covenants that were suppose to cover the perimeter wall but didn’t because of an oversight.
Many of the homeowners who have a wall have done their best to maintain them. I have spent roughly 4000 dollars over the past few years to keep my section up and I have a small section of 8 panels. I don’t do it because I think I have to, I do it for the good of my own property and that of my neighbors who want to feel proud of their community. Others have spent more. Some, especially those who have up to 22 sections, simply cannot afford that kind of cash outlay for something they had no idea was going to be coming at them. And still others have no intention of repairing the wall regardless of how the covenants were rewritten and it will take a lawsuit to get them to do so – and the HOA may not win that battle. But regardless of whether the HOA wins or loses, we will pay more in lawyer fees than we would have if we had simply taken on the wall committee’s proposal. A stubborn Board President will eventually have to deal with one or more stubborn homeowners and then we all lose.
Many of you have a huge green electric transformer box in your front yard – on an easement but nevertheless, in your yard. It was there before your house was built. You didn’t build it, you probably don’t even want it there. You would rather it was in your neighbor’s yard. Now, imagine some 15 to 20 years after you moved in, GVEC sends you a notice that the box needs maintenance and repair and you were expected to pay for it. You say “it isn’t mine” and they say “it is on your property”. You say “well move it somewhere else” and they say “sorry”. Then you ask, “Why am I the only one paying for the maintenance when it serves 7 or 8 homes?” And they say “because it on an easement on your property so it’s yours”. This is exactly how many of the homeowners with a brick wall feel. They don’t want you to take care of the wall – they want you to help.
Hopefully you have read the letter I delivered to each of you. Whether you agree with some, all, or any of it, please get involved, and, at the very least, be aware of how you vote.
