SCCA can't get its facts right! Who wrote the "SCCA Organization" published on SCCA Web site? ? ?
Stop believing the lies!
Check it out!
If SCCA can't even get its historical information right, what else can't SCCA get right?
SCCA's latest flim/flam trying to get members
to vote on a recall rule that isn't even legal!
They are counting on your ignorance!
Read this expert's opinion!
Donie Vanitzian, J.D. Arbitrator
"Associations"
May 6, 2007
Ms. Daniels
26020 Ridgemoor Road
Sun City, California 92586
Dear Ms. Daniels,
Thank you for writing to me at the Associations column appearing in the
Real Estate section of the Los Angeles Times. Please be advised that we
do not answer individual letters, but instead strive to address topics
for print where many readers who likely share the same or similar
problems may benefit from the answer. Our book Villa Appalling!
Destroying the Myth of Affordable Community Living, does address
numerous situations, not unlike the ones you describe, and was touted
“The Best Buyer Beware Book.”
In my latest book, Common Interest Developments—Homeowners Guide
(Thomson/West, 2006-2007, Expert Series) (hereafter “West”) the topic of
elections and Civil Code Section 1363.03, are addressed at length.
Legal analysis related on that same topic, is greatly expanded in the
2008 edition.
Relying on interpretations and analyses located in our Los Angeles
Times columns, the Thomson/West book, and my other legal treatises on
the subject matter of “elections;” in my opinion the “Proposed Recall
Rule” described in your letter, would likely be void on its face because
there is no such statute in the Davis-Stirling Act. The legal term
would be “removal.” Could it be possible that those responsible for
circulating the “Proposed Recall Rule” meant “Removal?” Because the
wording in the “Proposed Recall Rule” is legally inaccurate, that vote
would be void (See West, § 4:10. See also California Law Revision
Commission, Staff Memo H-855, Statutory Clarification and Simplification
of CID Law: Member Elections, Apr. 18, 2007 Exhibits 5–24). Do the
covenants, conditions, and restrictions use the term “recall?” Who
drafted the covenants, conditions, and restrictions? Maybe try for a
refund?
If, as you state, there are 4,762 units in a particular common interest
development, and an association expends $40,958.79 in connection with a
recall [sic] -- it doesn’t take a genius -- lawyer or not -- to figure
something appears to be seriously amiss. We tell our readers to use
their common sense. How does an association substantiate expending
$40,958.79 on a board election?! Think how many mortgage payments could
have been made. How many utility bills could have been paid. How many
foreclosures would be prevented. How many hospital bills and medication
prescriptions could have been paid for. How many air-conditioning units
could have been installed. If something like that happened at the
State-level, voters would be screaming foul.
You write that “the new voting requirements imposed by the Civil Code
[means that the] association will spend between $10,000 to $15,000, not
including necessary attorney’s fees, every time a recall is initiated.”
First, the quote fails to state a Civil Code or statute “section
number.” Are the owners supposed to guess which code that
correspondence is referring to? Circulating half-baked and inaccurate
information and instructions, and then expecting titleholders to vote on
mere speculation, is incompetent. Second, the statement itself is,
ridiculous. Nowhere in statute or case law, are such expenditures
mandated, nor are they necessary. Civil Code Section 1363.03 was
devised to prevent such needless expenditures. Nowhere in Civil Code
Section 1363.03 does it state an association must hire an “attorney” for
the purpose of conducting an election. One would have to question the
motives of a board that feels this is necessary. Third, why would any
owner vote to eliminate protections that exist in the law? Voting FOR
this “Proposed Recall Rule” will have the effect of eliminating options
that are available to owners to protect their property and assets. How
crazy is that!
Simple? Do not be fooled. There is nothing “simple” about that
“rule.” It will have far-reaching consequences for all that must live
under it. Why would any owner want a board in power that wants to pass
a rule like this?
Very truly yours,
*Nothing in the aforementioned is intended to relay legal advice, real
or imagined. Always seek qualified legal advice prior to making a decision.
On SCCA web site, paragraph 2, in the S.C. Organization, it states:
,
"Sun City was developed in 1964, breaking new ground by providing a community reserved for senior residents, with central meeting and recreational facilities designed for their exclusive use. Sun City became and remains today a bright haven for people 55 years and older who have worked long and hard for casual retirement among others with similar interests and goals.
This is pitiful. People unfamiliar with S.C.history read this and believe it. This is how more ignorance to over come is perpetrated by SCCA. People are entitled to real facts not lies.
Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong
Sun City was never developed as a 55+ community. It was intended only as an adult community of age 18+. I have a copy of an original Del Web promotional document. I would publish it on this web site but lack the technical skills to do so. Del Web's promo letter clearly states:
"Children are welcome as visitors any time, as are all your family and friends, but they must be over 18 to become permanent residents. Outstanding among the advantages of an adult community are the low taxes, as a result of the increase in tax revenue to the area without increasing the need for school facilities, and a desire of adults for the elements of a community designed exclusively for them."
Doug Gibson did win his law suit regarding the 55+ status SCCA claims is legal. SCCA has been denying Mr. Gibson's victory for years. The reality is SCCA's 55+ status is illegal!
More Lies
The greatest fiction being perpetrated by SCCA is that the enforcement of CC&R's keep up property values. This is a myth created by developers selling homes in deed restricted communities. It is not true. If it were true then properties would have not dropped below $100,000 in S.C. Core in the '90's.CC&R's and their enforcement would have kept property values up in Sun City and all over America where there are deed restricted communities! If it were true then run down properties in the worst LA neighborhoods shouldn't be selling for over $750,000 to over 1,500,000 while S.C. well kept properties have dropped in value to under $200,000. CC&R's do not determine property value. They create an excuse to control you.
Lies, myths and misinformation people have come
to believe as Gospel
CC&R's Keep up property values (lie #1)
It began over forty years ago---
. . . when builders began developing "deed restricted communities". In order to sell their product they had to first sell the concept "deed restricted commmunities" were a good idea. "They keep up your property values" is the idea they sold. Don't all good people want to keep up property values? Americans, at that time, had insufficient experience with "deed restricted communities" to predict their evils. They had know way of knowing what hell was about to be unleashed upon them.
Here is another lie!
Is a 55+ community really a good thing ? ? ?
Are the imaginary benefits you think you are getting worth the very real price you are paying ----
(like reporting your proof of age to the office every two years, invasion of your privacy with SCCA spying on you and any guests, the keeping of property values down, the having to beg permission for a care giver when in need--even if the care giver is a family member, the threat of a SCCA law suit if the codes compliance department decides--right or wrong--there might be a person living under the age of 55 in your home longer than one month)----
Is it really worth it?
There is nothing more dangerous than ignorance!
No comments:
Post a Comment