Thanks for taking the time to check out the Ridge Point website and Discussion Forum.

Please note that the Discussion Forum is meant to be used as a message board for ''neighborly'' Q&A-type information exchanges among past, present and future Ridge Pointe residents -- kind of like a hallway bulletin board in a school, church or community center.

Questions/comments should be directed to the appropriate board member/officer as shown on the ''RPHA Organizational Chart'' heading under ''Community Pages'' since comments made to this discussion forums section will not be checked regularly. The RPHA Board believes that the website is best used as an informational site only and not as a discussion forum.

Thanks for helping us keep this Discussion Forum a helpful source of information while making sure important RPHA questions and issues are handled in a more direct and businesslike manner.

By Webmaster

I Disagree

Webmaster,

The preface for this area of the website reads as follows:

?“Ridge Pointe Discussions

Your Neighborhood Discussions allow anyone interested to post and respond to questions, issues, and concerns about this neighborhood.?”

Even though this preface says anyone is allowed to post and respond to questions, it appears from your response that questions (at least certain questions) have now been ruled out.

In your reply you state, ?“?… the Discussion Forum is meant to be used as a message board ?… and not as a discussion forum?”. If you were correct that this ?“Discussion Forum?” is not to be used as a ?“discussion forum?” (a nonsensical statement, by the way), then it would be best to change the name from ?“Discussion Forum?” to some other name and to change the aforementioned preface. However, I do not believe that you are correct.

You state that comments made to this discussion forum will not be checked regularly and use this as an excuse for the reason that my questions (posted on January 24, 2007) should have been sent directly to the appropriate board member/officer. The board should be interested enough in the information posted on this forum to view it regularly. Since Oct. 17, 2006 (when the first discussion was posted), there have been only eight postings (all very short), including yours. I do not think it would overwhelm the Board for it to regularly view such few postings. Moreover, I hope that the Board is interested in what is posted on this discussion forum. It should be!

In the last sentence of your reply, you state, ?“?… while making sure important RPHA questions and issues are handled in a more direct and businesslike manner.?” Cannot the board reply to my questions on this forum in a manner that is as direct and businesslike as it would if I submitted my questions directly to the board? Anyhow, this is just another lame excuse.

If you are saying that my posting of questions was not ?“businesslike?”, then I disagree. Further, if I pose my questions directly to the board, then others do not have the benefit of the questions or to the answers thereto. One primary purpose of the website is to improve communications among homeowners instead of restricting those communications.

Of course, with the approach you are describing, the board can better hide what is going on. That is exactly what it wants to do.

In the second sentence of your response, if you are insinuating that my questions are not ?“neighborly?” in nature, then I disagree.

Your statements are contrary to the aforementioned preface to the ?“discussions?” section of this website, such introduction encouraging the posting of ?“questions, issues and concerns about this neighborhood?”. This introduction says nothing about your ridiculous claim that the forum should be used ?“like a hallway bulletin board in a school, church or community center.?” Quite the contrary.

I appreciate your adding the ?“Vision 2025 Update?” to the website as the result of my questions. I will take a look at it and see if it answers my questions as you claim it does.

Jim Bruggeman

I concur

I would like to further add that I agree in spirit that questions should be directed to the org chart. HOWEVER, I do feel that in a free democracy adequate criticism should be allowed when the ''traditional'' communication methods do not yield results. If dialog is truly meant to be open, then critique, both good and bad, must be allowed. Otherwise, I feel that the HOA board would be viewed as closed minded and uninterested in community feedback that doesn't fit their designs and I would hate to see that happen.