Mitchell Park West Neighbors

Under the heading "Membership ," I suggest this wording:

Membership shall be comprised of all homeowners, residents, and proprietors of businesses permanently located within the MPWNA boundaries(.Otherwise, you could read the sentence as all owners, residents and proprietors of businesses.....leaving out the "home" part.)

Under the heading "Special Meetings,"  reference is made to the President.  (Though it is exciting to think President Obama would call us to a meeting, the term Chairman has been used elsewhere in the document to refer to our Fearless Leader.)

Under the heading  "General Meetings,"  it appears that the board could decide to just have one a year, with this wording.  I suggest requiring the four meetings.  Thus:    "General meetings shall be scheduled quarterly, with additional meetings called when deemed necessary....."

All in all, an admirable job, Ira!  

As I awoke this morning, I realized that I missed some (perhaps unintentional) exclusionary language in the text above.  A "proprietor" is the owner of a business.   How can this apply to Childsplay? And what other business has ever been interested in our association?  Also, the term permanently located:  what does that exclude?  Hot Dog cart owners?   Renters?   I think that needs to go too.

So:  Membership shall be offered to all homeowners, residents, and representatives of businesses located within the MPWNA boundaries.

"Comprised" is okay, just a bit formal;  the text of the bylaws need not be so formal:  otherwise, there are a few subject/verb/pronoun references that need to be changed.

Pat

"Representatives of businesses" opens up a big problem that needs to be addressed.

My fear is that developers and owners of multiple rentals can have too big of a voting voice in the neighborhood and work together to transform our neighborhood into one of high-density condos like those along Farmer. Giving too much power over to such entitiesby allowing any and all "representatives" to vote would damage the neighborhood in the long term.

Also, it gives people like myself, who run businesses out of our home offices, TWO votes. I don't think that's fair.

Therefore, I propose that businesses get only ONE vote. RESIDENTS should have priority, weather homeowners or renters. Absentee property owners and buisiness owners, most of whom leave the neighborhood at night and go home to their own neighborhoods, should be limited to single-vote representation.

A business gets ONE vote. A business is not a person, it is a small government. Giving businesses the same rights as individuals is a mentality propegated by neo-conservatives and libertarians and has led to the trend of deregulation that, during the Bush administration particularly, has done irreparable damage to the environment, our nation's reputation and the economy. We need to keep the voting power in the neighborhood in the hands of the people who live here and make sure that outside entities do not govern the future of our quality of life and the value of our properties.

Forgot to sign (and spell check).

Scott Seibel