Menifee/Sun City
Chamber of Commerce
Dubious Integrity in Menifee Valley
pedophiles aren't the only bad guys
who need to be exposed
Thugs and liars are now on the Board of Directors of the Newly merged Chamber of commerce! If you want to be certain the old Chamber will be as incompetent as what was the "new chamber" vote for Jerry Stamper and Joan Ring! They are so jaded they don't even admit responsibility for destroying the new one. Now they want to repeat themselves in this one! By the way by what secret legal process did they accomplish since I saw no ballot for membership vote?
Three weeks ago The Californian quoted Jerry Stamper saying the Chamber was closing their doors and going to sublet the space. Now they are planning an installation dinner? Is it any wonder the Chamber is a disaster with that kind of ambivalent leadership? Can anyone believe anything that Chamber says or does? By the way, since the two Chambers aren't IBM and Hewlett Packard, how long or how hard is it to complete a merger? Stamper has been "talking about merger talks" for almost two and one half years? It makes one wonder--is Stamper interested in accomplishing anything more than getting his name in the paper?
Solomon’s Choice
$17,000 in legal fees down the toilette trying to harm another Chamber & Board member the Board could have avoided simply by making the right choice when they were asked in Therese Daniel’s March 11, 2006 letter to the Board.
Via Superior Court of Riverside County, the Menifee/Sun City Chamber of Commerce had to reinstate me as Director of the Board and member of the Chamber. It was an expensive and hard struggle to force this Board to comply with the laws of the State of California. They demonstrated extreme animosity towards me, grasped at any straw to discredit me in their attempts to justify their own malice. The actions of the current Board to terminate me last March were unethical, illegal, immoral and egregious. Menifee/Sun City Chamber Board of Directors repeatedly demonstrated a flagrant disregard for its own bylaws, California Corporate and Fair Practice laws. This is the second time this Board has railroaded a qualified person who has done only good for the new Chamber. Remember Julie Johnson? Her last statement was; “They fired me for doing a good job.”
However, acting in a legal and professional manner is of no concern to Jerry Stamper and his coconspirators. They have treated the Chamber as if it were their personal private club. Saying; “Off with their head!” to anyone who didn’t agree with their opinions. Their attitude is simply: “What has legality, credibility, or accountability to the membership got to with any thing?” Consequently, for the highest and best interest of this Chamber, I was going to file a petition to remove the existing Board on the basis of malfeasance, incompetence, moral turpitude, conspiracy to cover up, and conspiracy to commit an egregious act against another Board member. It is a waste of time and money as the best they can hope to do is merge with another chamber and the worst is they probably dissolve. There are many, many wonderful members who joined this Chamber as an alternative to the old Chamber who deserve to have honesty, integrity, and inspiration in its leadership. They do not deserve to be betrayed by a dishonest Chairman of the Board whose only effort since this Chamber began was to sabotage our straight line to success by attempting to manipulate us to merge with the very Chamber the members chose not to join. Within three months after we began to develop the Chamber Jerry Stamper worked counter productively towards the Chamber’s success by secretly conspiring with the old Chamber to merge. His actions were not in the best interests of the Chamber.
Many people asked me why I would want to be with a group of people who so obviously bear malice towards me. I took my stand for two reasons. My word, promises, and oaths are my life. I took an oath to serve the Chamber—not the Board of Directors of the Chamber. The order of the Riverside County Superior Court was a direct result of my refusal to violate my personal oath to serve the Menifee-Sun City Chamber of Commerce. The second reason I chose to hold my position is to protect my reputation. Knowing what this group did to Julie Johnson was a good indicator as to what they would do to me. I had been a loyal, dedicated, positive Board member since its inception. Just as Julie, I had done nothing to deserve what they attempted to do to me.
This Chamber was born out of dissatisfaction with the quality of management of the Menifee Valley Chamber of Commerce and I was told by Cheryl, Jeff Stone’s desire to crush his opponents from old Chamber. As one of the seven or more original founding members, I swore to serve the Chamber for it and its members’ highest and best good. When the Board attempted to illegally terminate me in March, I protested and advised them they were acting illegally. I asked them to send me a list of items they deemed were unacceptable in my behavior. They refused. After several failed attempts by me and my attorney to communicate with them, I petitioned the Superior Court of Riverside for reinstatement. The best Jerry Stamper could do was produce a pitiful and comical two page letter written by Carol Crocker attempting to prove how undesirable I was. The problem with Carol’s letter is she was so confused; she falsely accused me of inviting someone to participate in the EDC meeting who “wasn’t even a member.” It turned out he was a member before she became a member. When the alleged non member in Carol’s letter brought this to Cheryl Ferruli’s attention she gave him a free membership plus an ad in the news letter.
When we first gathered to discuss the start of a second and we hoped more successful chamber, the founding members were not very well known to me. I had whole heartedly believed they were capable, professional, ethical, and motivated people dedicated to the success of a new Chamber. It was only a matter of a few months into our effort I learned I was seriously mistaken. There is nothing more fun or productive for local business than a well run vital Chamber. Chambers being non profit corporations for the benefit of commerce are run by a volunteer Board of Directors. The benefits for the volunteers are extra visibility and the prestige of serving. This is why it is imperative that all who serve on the Board bring honesty, enthusiasm, integrity, and ability. When there were only the seven of us as the first members, various offices were open. Jerry Stamper, the current Chairman of the Board grabbed the position of Chairman of the Board and simply was unchallenged by the rest of us. He was never voted into his grabbed position. His leadership immediately began abandoning us by going on a month long honeymoon. Thus he left the rest of us at a critical time to do all the grunt work, locate an office, deal with the harassment of the old Chamber to get up and running. When he did return to assume his duties, he couldn’t remember dates of meetings, agreements he made, decisions by the Board, doesn’t know how to write a letter, and can not speak publicly. No one but I said a word. I was told to shut up.
The powers of Chairman of the Board as so designated in the Chamber’s bylaws are limited to conducting meetings and general over seeing the daily grunt work of Chamber business. They do not permit Chair people to enter into large contracts, negotiate Chamber mergers, arbitrarily give themselves the title of President, or any other such actions that directly affect the Chamber business and image. (However, Jerry Stamper and his Board can not be bothered obeying its own Chamber laws and bylaws. They via “unanimous decisions” by their personal clique of Directors present at their clandestine meetings would validate any violation, harm, or lie, they choose as it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by their flagrant disregard of a Superior Court Order to reinstate me.) At an emergency meeting called by Stamper at his house October 2005, we learned--rather than his focusing upon the success of our Chamber-- Jerry had begun unauthorized “talks” about merging our Chamber with the old Chamber. None of us challenged Jerry on his unauthorized actions. Jerry made it very clear the “old Chamber” absolutely did not want Julie Johnson as the CEO. (Julie Johnson, CEO of the Menifee Valley Chamber who had done an outstanding job was terminated by them. No good deed goes unpunished.) Two main decisions were made at that meeting:
1. We would not even consider talks with the other Chamber until after the first of 2006.
2. The Board would give Julie Johnson a vote of confidence and support her in her CEO efforts.
Within three days after that meeting, I began getting calls from Ron and Betty Royer. Ron was very direct and advised me under no circumstances did they want this Chamber to merge with the other. Betty raved about Julie & Cora as the two dynamos “who all by themselves put the Chamber together”. Betty proclaimed “this Chamber is the best thing Menifee has going.” Both the Royers were planning to begin a petition against the Board in favor of retaining Julie. It was a mystery to me as to where they were getting their information. Within a week or so Cheryl Ferrulli, who was a Director and treasurer began to call me to discuss her frustration with Julie and my feelings about Julie. It was my opinion then and remains so today, Julie Johnson is very knowledgeable and capable about Chambers. Julie was faced with same problems all of us face. She was human and therefore fallible.
In November, a second emergency meeting was called by Jerry Stamper at his house. He and other members of the Board trashed Julie. It was particularly cruel. Three motions were made and unanimously approved at that meeting:
1. Julie Johnson was to be terminated as CEO
2. Under no circumstances would we merge or talk about merging with the other Chamber.
3. To assure the members, an e-mail blast would be sent confirming our refusal to merge.
Immediately after Julie’s termination, Jerry began referring to himself as President of the Chamber with approval from Jeff Comerchero. How convenient for Stamper Julie was now removed. He had removed the first negotiating obstacle to merge with the old Chamber. Jerry Stamper ignored the Boards’ decision to neither discuss nor merge. He secretly and aggressively persisted in negotiating with Vicki Carpenter. While he was doing that, he was denying to our Board any participation. Per Jerry’s suggestion, Vicki changed the word “merger” to “unification” because Jerry claimed the word “merger” was so unpopular with the members. Jerry even made promises to Vicki that Darcy would become the CEO of the merged Chambers. Then, from November to January, Jerry began repeating the ideas and phrases of Ms. Carpenter as if they were his ideas. “We need to keep the community unified. We can’t make enemies. We must not divide the community. . .” Just what defined “community” by them is a question to me? Most of Sun City Area is a retired community and a Chamber is designed for non retired business people to promote commerce. Jerry’s actions and secret efforts were truly counter productive to the Chambers goals.
Three hours after Julie’s termination, Ron and Betty Royer were at the Chamber office offering their loyalty to the Chamber and asking Cora, Julie’s former assistant out to lunch. After that The Royers’ began patronizing Jerry Stamper, Joan Ring, and Cheryl Ferrulli for positions of power in the Chamber. (Is it any surprise Betty Royer is currently on the Board of Directors. Ron Royer is chair of EDC?)
It wasn’t until January 2006 that all of the Board members got complete insight into Jerry Stamper’s aggressive role in attempting to negotiate a merger without prior Board knowledge or approval. From the November ‘05 meeting to January, Jerry was saying to each member of the Board; “Oh, poor me. I am under so much pressure. I don’t know what to do. They keep calling me and sending me letters asking me to merge. I just can’t handle this. I have to answer them. We have to acknowledge them” When questioned about the degree of his effort towards this attempted merger, he denied any action on his part and claimed the Directors of the other Chamber of the Menifee Valley Chamber just kept calling him and putting pressure on him in spite of refusal to talk to them.
My first awareness of what Jerry was doing came to me through Cheryl Ferrulli who had a habit of calling me every evening from 7 P.M. until 10 P.M. from November to January. Cheryl continually bragged she is one of Laurie Stone Rubin’s best friends and has spent many Christmas Eves at Jeff Stone’s home. Cheryl provided me with information I had no way of knowing unless it came from her. I acted upon much of that information only to have it used against me later. She discussed details about Laurie Stone Rubin’s life,--her divorce, her mother’s cancer and Laurie’s fear of her own cancer in January 2006,--Jeff Stone, all she had learned about Jerry Stamper and Izzy, and Ron & Betty Royer whom she and Joan Ring repeatedly claimed they particularly disliked. (At least that is what they continually told me about the Royers. They called theRoyers passive/aggressive. Were they talking out of both sides of their mouth?) Cheryl was furious among other items about Ron Royer’s vicious treatment of one of the service vendors at the Christmas in Menifee event. She told me she made Ron apologize for it. Cheryl claimed she despised Jerry Stamper and wanted to do everything in her power to derail his position as Chairman of the Board. When she realized how close Jerry was to succeeding in obtaining a Board quorum to discuss a merger, she enlisted Joan Ring, Sharon Crow and me to vote against it. Later when she realized Jerry had asked Gus Telfer Hernandez to join our Board she became livid. She called me and talked for days saying that Gus was part of a World Gym scandal and that his wife cheated Laurie Stone out of $500. It later turned out it wasn’t the same Gus who cheated World Gym investors but she claimed it was true that this Gus’s wife cheated Laurie out of $500. Please bear in mind this was information I would have no other way to obtain except from Cheryl. She very much coveted the CEO position and resented that Jerry Stamper was reluctant to give her a full contract. After Jerry’s motion to discuss a merger with the other Chamber was clearly defeated at the January 2006 Board meeting, vital information came forward from Cheryl which exposed Jerry in all his deceitful actions and bald faced lies. Jerry had been bragging to Brian Eckhouse of the Californian, one month prior that the Chambers would merge. In a telephone conference call with Brian Eckhouse, Joan Ring, Cheryl, Jerry Stamper right after the Board meeting, Brian repeated twice to Jerry: “This is a 180 degrees opposite from what you told me last month.” At that point, Jerry Stamper was clearly the “Emperor and His New Suit of Clothes.” He was naked and we all saw it. I was appalled and disgusted that Jerry abused his position as Chairman to deceive his own Board while misrepresenting his powers to the Directors of the other Chamber. It was the perfect time for him to be asked to resign his position as Chairman. If Jerry had any integrity he should have automatically resigned for the highest and best good of the Chamber. In my mind it was the fiduciary duty of this Board to make him accountable and ask him to resign. He had proven himself to be a liar, failed to act for the good of his own Chamber and abused his position as Chair. Why then, was he not asked to resign from his position as Chairman of the Board? Why was he allowed to step on stage at Jeff Stone’s EDA Luncheon? In spite of my objection at the January Board meeting to Jeff Comerchero about calling Jerry president, Comerchero still introduced Jerry as courageous founder, leader and President of the new Chamber. Then Jerry stumbled, mumbled, before 600 people? After that I was keenly aware there something very, very wrong with this Board.
I talked to Joan Ring; Cheryl Ferrulli, Sharon Crow, and tried to talk with Thad Luyban. Why, I asked repeatedly after all the lies, deceit, Chamber bylaws violated by him is Jerry Stamper still Chairman of the Board. Sharon Crow told me “the problem was settled so shut up. You are acting like a high school kid.” Cheryl Ferruli agreed he lied to us, but said we had to go along with him. (Why we had to do that she never said.) Thad never returned my call. Joan Ring agreed he did wrong by lying to us, that he is weak, he is forgetful, and makes bad decisions but advised me to put up with him just a little longer. She said he couldn’t take much pressure and was planning to retire in June. I stated I would continue to serve on the Board under protest of Jerry as Chairman. Joan became extremely hostile at that moment and said; “Don’t you dare.” Since it was obvious there was some – unknown to me ‘buddyism’ going on between Jeff Comerchero and Jerry Stamper, I never even bothered to waste my time trying to talk to Jeff. What was wrong with the picture? Why was I feeling the Chamber was being sabotaged? It became very clear this was nothing more than a cover up of Jerry Stamper’s harmful actions to this Chamber. As I began to mentally focus on my question, all the little ‘this’s and ‘that’s’ I had heard and ignored about Joan Ring and Jerry Stamper began to haunt me. She made a big issue at the February Board meeting to tell Jerry what a great job he did at Jeff Stone’s luncheon. (All who saw him that day know he made a fool of himself on stage). It definitely seemed the promoter of the cover up was Joan Ring who had convinced others to go along with her. It appeared to me Joan protected Jerry like a jealous lover. That is why Jerry was never asked to step down as Chairman of the Board. That is why a memo I sent March 7, 2006 addressed only to Joan and Cheryl was shared with the other Board members and used as an excuse to attempt to oust me. The memo vented over my issues about Ron Royer’s self serving interests and Cheryl Ferrulli’s failure to stand up on behalf of a Director over a rather difficult member. The memo closed stating I didn’t think anything would change, “I was merely “clearing the air.”
Since then they spent $17,000 in legal fees trying to keep me out. This is a non profit corporation and that is how they spent membership money. Now they have zero in the bank account. That’s a lot of malice from a group of people who claim to be so pure yet bash me.
Since they barred me from my seat on the Board for eight months, the Board approved talks regarding merger with the other Chamber. Let me be very specific on this issue. It is one thing to work with Boards approval, and quite another to lie and do so without Boards’ approval as Jerry Stamper had done. Now that Jerry Stamper has Board approval, does not exonerate the fact that he had lied and misrepresented the Board from November 2005 to January 2006. The issue of Clinton’s impeachment was not that he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. The issue is that he lied about it. Though Clinton prevailed, it still didn’t change the fact he lied. The Board’s later approval of merger talks doesn’t change the fact Jerry Stamper is a proven liar and the Board covered up for him.
March 8, 2006, Jerry Stamper e-mailed and via regular mail a letter to resign or they would terminate me due to my “lack of respect for the leadership of the Chamber.” It was supposedly signed by the entire then existing Board. They not only attempted to terminate me as a Board of Director but my membership as well. This was obviously a retaliatory act by Joan Ring and Cheryl Ferrulli. Where was the wisdom and good leadership in that? Was that their idea of acting in the highest and best interest of the Chamber? Among the many peculiar items about Jerry’s letter was the fact that it failed recognize me as one of the leaders. Was it before I sent the memo or after I sent the memo they had decided I wasn’t one of the “leaders” of this Chamber? Having served in various positions on Boards of non profits for over 25 years in the greater Los Angeles area, I had the opportunity to acquire experience and knowledge about them. I have been a member of four Chambers and served on the Boards of two. Based upon this past and more recent experience, I can objectively say six of the current Chamber Directors are unqualified for the reason listed below and other reasons that will come forward later:
1. Incompetence Not one of the six Directors ever took the time to learn, understand, and abide by its own laws and bylaws. They do not even know they are supposed to keep the Chamber corporate book complete with all minutes available at all times for member inspection. What kind of decisions in the Chamber’s best interest could they make without knowledge of the California Corporate laws and their own Chamber’s bylaws? What a display of absolute arrogance to not know non profit corporate laws.
2. Moral turpitude Instead of dealing with Jerry Stamper when it was obvious to all he was misrepresenting himself as President after Julie was terminated, they pretended it was O.K. Why is it O.K. for Jerry to do that and not O.K. for me to disagree with it? What kind of credibility is that?
3. Conspiracy to cover up & moral turpitude When it was discovered Jerry was violating his position as Chairman of the Board and negotiating an unauthorized merger with another Chamber, they covered it up. Jerry Stamper was nothing more than a mole for the other Chamber. How honest was and is this to the members who wanted a new and more progressive Chamber? What kind of ethics, morality and integrity did that show? (I am well aware Jerry has since manipulated the Board and created committee to explore a merger. A merger is pending.)
4. Conspiracy to commit an egregious act against another Board member When I protested too much, they conspired via secret meeting to commit an egregious act against me by attempting to illegally terminate me. Then they persisted in their malice for eight months by refusing to respond to all reasonable attempts to discuss the matter. They incurred a $17,000 legal bill doing so. How did the Chamber benefit from that?
5. Moral turpitude & incompetence They don’t believe in a Director’s right to opinion and free speech. Therefore, to successfully serve with them, a Director must agree to censorship. They do not run a Board, they run a dictatorship. What they were too ignorant to understand, is -- it is the duty of any Director on the Board to look into the moral fiber, track record, ability and character of any one looking for positions of power within the structure of a non profit corporation. Any good leader knows the importance of good character and integrity is imperative. I had good reason to write the Board memo’s to other Board members about my doubts of Jerry Stamper as Chair, Ron and Betty Royer’s persistent patronizing, and Gus Hernandez after Cheryl had made such a big deal about Gus’s wife cheating Laurie Stone. I had no reason to suspect Cheryl would misrepresent her information, her feelings, or intentions and later deny she did so. This Board is so ignorant. It attempted to use the memos written by me and given only to a couple of Board members as evidence of wrong doing on my part. What they don’t know is that those memos only demonstrate how passionately dedicated I was in performing my duty as a Board member.
6. Malfeasance When confronted with overwhelming information complete with quoted points and authorities, California corporate laws, about their illegal activities, they ignored the facts, placed themselves above the law and did as they please. They showed total contempt for any law just as they are showing contempt of a signed court order now. They preferred to create a $17,000 legal bill. How safe is any other good willed person serving on their Board? How safe is the membership?
7. Malfeasance & moral turpitude They violated their own oaths, bylaws, California Corporate laws and California Fair Practice laws. They chose to serve each other rather than the Chamber. They betrayed their own members. How seriously have they compromised the Chamber’s straight line effort to success? They lost over 150 members. Now the best they can do is merge? Isn’t merging what started the whole conflict last January 2006?
8. Moral turpitude, malfeasance & incompetence When finally forced by Riverside County Superior Court to deal with this issue, they tried to make up lies about me be claiming I “threw chairs.” When asked to prove so in writing they forwarded a meaningless letter by Carol Crocker intended to prove my unworthiness as a Director. It was so incompetent she wrote “a man invited by me (Therese Daniels) to the EDC committee meeting was not even a member.” He had been a member since August of ’05.
9. Continued incompetence, malfeasance & malice Since they realized they agreed to accept me via Court Order, they are once again violating Chamber, California corporate, and Fair Practice laws and illegally placing this issue on the agenda of the General membership meeting this January 11, 2007. They now want to attempt to discredit and debase me to the membership and use the membership’s lack of knowledge about the true facts to vote me out. They want to do so by bypassing the proper method of giving me an opportunity to defend myself. How honest and fair is that? Is this action of a Board of integrity or a Board of incompetence?
1. Their response to the e-mail I sent them informing them they were holding secret Board meetings again was to hold a special Board meeting on January 2, 2007 at 2 PM. They chose to ignore the four point written statement I gave them explaining their foolishness if they persisted in keeping item IV on the agenda. Then they tried to convince me if I responded in my own defense as to what they have done to you and me, I would be only making my reputation worse. Now this is where I get confused. Isn’t being asked to be removed from the Board of Directors by the entire membership a direct public discredit and debasement of me? Yet, they want to do that to me and expect me to coyly turn the other cheek and say nothing in my defense. If I am already destroyed how can I do any more damage to myself?
2. Now they knowingly have voted to keep item IV on the agenda regardless of the consequences they bring upon themselves, this membership, and any future public relations. They are smug certain they will get away with this because think a merger with Menifee Valley Chamber is eminent. Imagine how that Chamber will feel when it finds out this brilliant group chalked up a $17,000 legal bill for a cause they could not win.
When Menifee/Sun City Chamber began, it promised its members a newer and better Chamber than Menifee Valley Chamber of Commerce. They lied to the people who joined on good faith. They failed to keep their promise. What makes a Chamber great is its leadership, the participation of the membership and the results their efforts bring the membership. In the approximately 14 months since they trashed Julie and the ten months since they barred me from service on the Board, they failed at every project to show the smallest profit, to bring strong membership turn out, to boost member’s businesses, to make a great Chamber or stand out in pride and joy in the community. This is the price this new Chamber has paid because of Jerry Stamper’s poor leadership, choices in people to serve on the Board and sabotage of this Chamber’s success unchallenged by any one but me. Consequently, is the only action left for this Chamber to merge with the old Chamber? Is this wise and good leadership?
The above article is a clear and true statement to the best of my knowledge.
Therese Daniels
Cc: To attorney Richard Lowe, Brian Eckhouse of The Californian, Members of Menifee/Sun City Chamber and Menifee Valley Chamber, Julie Johnson any and all persons.
No matter how loud, much or colorfully the people mentioned in this article deny and protest, we have a large file with copies of the court filed documents, minutes, news paper articles, e-mails, letters, including names of witnesses, and more that document and prove the accuracy of the above statements in this article. Let the mud fly!
The January general membership meeting was held and they illegally held a vote in which they claim they got sufficient votes to remove me from the Board. Once again they violated their own Chamber bylaws because:
1. The provision in the bylaws applies only to a general member and not a Board member
2. They still did not give state what I did wrong.
3. I am not even certain the vote count was honest
What is wrong with the people of Menifee Valley? Don't they care if they are dealing with ignorant, self serving manipulative liars who ruthlessly ignore the standards of ethics, honor or integrity? It seems lawlessness prevails! Do they really think if they sleep with dogs they won't get fleas? I don't know about you, but I for one will not do business with any business who is a member of the Menifee/Sun City Menifee Chamber of Commerce.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Why Shout
Consistency
By Ralph Waldo Emerson
Isn't it a crying shame that seniors who have saved all their lives, paid in full their properties to live a worry free retirement now live in fear of non judicial foreclouse for having committed no crime. They live at the mercy of an inept, malevolent, useless HOA .
To expose injustice wherever it is discovered!
Newspaper
The best friend injustice has is silence. That is why it is so necessary to speak out when you become aware of a wrong of any kind by anyone. The injustice to your neighbor you ignore today, may become the injustice you suffer tomorrow. That is why I shout. You should shout, too.
Soften Your Heart
by Margaret Tyson
SCCA's hearts are hard and cold
it could be believed that they hate the old.
And the seniors that live in the core
Pay and pay until we're poor.
Our social security income is fixed and low
it doesn't go very far you know.
Up went the fees for 2000, last year
and going up again is what we fear.
We feel abondoned, alone, and lost
We can't afford this outrageous cost.
Is there a better way to get what they need?
do they have to hit us until we bleed?
When we're in the red and coming up short
our frivolous spending we have to abort.
Medication, rent and food are first on our mind
to take that away from us is very unkind.
The SCCA is hurting us where we live
our pockets are empty, not much to give
So soften your hearts and give us a break
We don't have the money you want to take.
Disolve the SCCA. We do not need their abusive management. They need our money!
By Ralph Waldo Emerson
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Out upon your guarded lips! Sew them up with packthread, do. Else if you would be a man, (woman), speak what you think today in words as hard as cannon balls, and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradicts everything you said today. Ah, then exclaim the aged ladies, you shall be sure to be misunderstood. Misunderstood? It is a right fool’s word. Is it so bad to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.
Isn't it a crying shame that seniors who have saved all their lives, paid in full their properties to live a worry free retirement now live in fear of non judicial foreclouse for having committed no crime. They live at the mercy of an inept, malevolent, useless HOA .
To expose injustice wherever it is discovered!
Newspaper
The best friend injustice has is silence. That is why it is so necessary to speak out when you become aware of a wrong of any kind by anyone. The injustice to your neighbor you ignore today, may become the injustice you suffer tomorrow. That is why I shout. You should shout, too.
Soften Your Heart
by Margaret Tyson
SCCA's hearts are hard and cold
it could be believed that they hate the old.
And the seniors that live in the core
Pay and pay until we're poor.
Our social security income is fixed and low
it doesn't go very far you know.
Up went the fees for 2000, last year
and going up again is what we fear.
We feel abondoned, alone, and lost
We can't afford this outrageous cost.
Is there a better way to get what they need?
do they have to hit us until we bleed?
When we're in the red and coming up short
our frivolous spending we have to abort.
Medication, rent and food are first on our mind
to take that away from us is very unkind.
The SCCA is hurting us where we live
our pockets are empty, not much to give
So soften your hearts and give us a break
We don't have the money you want to take.
Disolve the SCCA. We do not need their abusive management. They need our money!
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Does Sun City really need CC&R's and an HOA?
Does Menifee really need Sun City Civic Association CC&R's and an HOA?
It's been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt the CC&R's and the capricious enforcement of them fails to protect the value of our properties. All it does is harass residents. Isn't it just a bit embarrasssing to be designated a blighted area after being constantly told we are paying dues to have our property values protected? Isn't that why SCCA board keeps Donald Miller on the pay roll? The residents of Sun City are senior adults, not children and not criminals and not charity cases. Do we really need to be spied upon as if we were? Other than take our money and harass us, just what does the board do for us? As far as the swimming pool and work shops go, we don't need an entire HOA to run them. Any single manager could do that for far less the cost. This HOA is like a black box with a button. Push the button and a little hand comes out and turns itself off. Sun City residents don't need an HOA whose only purpose is self perpetuation.
For some perverse reason the SCCA Board seems to think being an age 55 senior community is a major benefit. If so, just what are the benefits? Don Weddle was recently quoted in the Press Enterprise justifying the codes enforcement officers because some homes might have people under 55 living in the Core. (Isn't that a real threat to society?) Would someone please tell me what is so important about keeping the age limit to 55? People are senior adults at 45. Another proof that CC&R's do not protect property values is the age limit of 55. What do you think would happen to the property values in the core if the age were dropped to 45?
CC&R's were written by lawyers over 45 years ago based upon condominium standards.The core of Sun City is made up of single family homes. Most of the issues in the CC&R'S are stupid, ridicules, invasive, too restrictrive, and violate human rights.They are also poorly written as they are contradictory, vague, and left to arbitrary interpretation. However, SCCA'S enforcement of them is capricious, reclacitrant and cruel. The CC&R'S used by the SCCA are neither divine, Gospel nor the Bible. They were created by man with out foresight for the life styles in at the turn of the century. What is created or written by man can be changed by man. The CC&R's have been the source of conflicts between neighbors and the SCCA for years. They have been used as a sword and a whip against residents and made their lives a living hell. This has robbed members of the quiet enjoyment of their home. The SCCA claimed they do so to protect property values. This is a lie. Sun City is declared a blighted area. Under SCCA leadership, Sun City has gone down in value in relationship to the new communities that are built to our borders. It is time to put a moratorium on these stupid CC&R's and start planning to bring Sun City into the Twenty First Century and eventually the City of Menifee Valley. Edit Text
letter to Don Weddle continue. . .
I take #9 to clearly mean that neither fence nor landscaping should be planned that blocks the view of any adjacent lot. What seems to take precedence in the language of #9 is the importance of maintaining the view. Obviously, the first concern is protecting resident’s golf course views. That is the primary purpose of the CC&R’s. Views are the reason people choose to live on the golf course. Good view lots bring premiums. One item that is perfectly clear in CC&R#9 is “. . . no solid wall. . .” any where between the lots. The plastic wall erected by Carl Fuess is solid. How is it SCCA can bend or ignore the rules for him and do nothing to protect me? ? ? Am I not also a paid member in good standing? There is everything in the Del Web design of Sun City, tradition, intent, and CC&R#9 that suggests it is not O.K. to build a fence where it will block the neighbor’s golf course view. As a realtor of thirty years having worked on many new home communities, I can assure you protecting a golf course lot view is the highest and best interpretation of that CC&R#9.
Many things people have done prior to 1993 have been grandfathered. The two foot block wall along the adjacent property line to my neighbor was built when this home was built. Why then, is it not considered “grandfathered in” and accepted the only fence necessary between the properties? How could SCCA so flagrantly violate 40 years of tradition between these properties by permitting a six foot solid plastic wall. Plastic wasn’t a material that was used for fencing way back in the “60’s. How could the writer of CC&R #9 have known to exclude plastic as an undesirable material? How, then is the code enforcer permitted to condone the use of that horrible material? To date, the only plastic fence in Sun City Core is the one built next door to me. Originally, Del Web had an architectural review board that would have denied the use of such a horrible material. Today materials are supposed to be approved by at least two board member. Did any two board members make such an approval? If so, is heavy solid plastic fencing meant for ranches going to be the trend in Sun City?
In the eyes of the law it might appear both neighbors are guilty of something. However every case has elements that make it unique. Every situation must be judged on the pertinent facts. From the surface, it appears as if two cranky, stubborn people are having a battle of wills. Taking a closer look will show it is quite a different picture. It doesn’t take a mental giant to recognize the circumstances of each neighbor is entirely different. One neighbor is a living resident who plans to stay there until death do her part. The other is an absentee investor whose only purpose is to sell for profit and move on. One lot is on the corner of a busy street. The other is an inside lot. There is a clear right and wrong situation here. There is an innocent victim. There is a bad guy. Consequently the same arguments are not going to apply equally to both. For example, when I first realized a six foot solid plastic wall was going to be erected and Fuess was too belligerent to be reasonable, I went to SCCA and filed a complaint against Carl Fuess. I also went to the building department to check on the concrete damn he built next to our property line. When he threw one of my potted plants at me and seriously injured my right arm, I filed a police report against him. When I sent a letter to the broker who is marketing his house, I was merely alerting him of a DRE disclosure law. Carl Fuess took it as if I were trying to prevent him from selling his place. (He evidently wants some unsuspecting family to buy his over priced by $60,000 property and let them deal with a controversial fence he built.) All my actions were hopeless attempts to protect myself, my property, and my peaceful life style I had enjoyed from 1998 to July 2004.
Carl Fuess damaged my concrete patio by cutting a wedge eight inches deep and cracking a large corner from the slab. He refuses to compensate me for the damage.(not the SCCA problem) He arbitrarily cut two inches of the patio slab claiming it was encroaching on his property. He did so without the benefit of a licensed surveyor. He talked to as many neighbors as he could trying to get them to say something negative about me. He perjured himself in a sworn statement in a petition for a TRO. Carl Fuess also filed complaints to SCCA that I was operating a business from my home. (If I were, how did that hurt him?) When that failed, he complained to the County building department I added a room without a permit. (If it were so, how did that space interfere with the quality of his life?) When that failed, he complained to SCCA about weeds in front of my house. (This was the first letter I ever got from the SCCA about weeds since I moved here in 1998). As late as April 29, 2005, I received a letter from SCCA claiming a six foot block wall that was built by Del Web when this house was built was in violation of CC&R#9. That wall, built for security reasons was grandfathered in. Yet, I was told by SCCA it was a violation and I had to take it down to three feet 25 feet the rear property line. In each and every one of these issues Carl Fuess used SCCA in an effort to hurt me. Not one of the issues Carl Fuess has attempted to use against me impinges upon his personal life style, value of his property next door or in Wildomar. The removal of a wall that enlarged an existing interior space, my little quiet home office, nor six foot block security wall between my property and Murrieta RD. in no way shape or form caused him harm, inconvenience, or economic loss. All those complaints, plus his conspiracy with a certain Sun City Broker to slander me and do me harm in the civil courts were done with pure malice. He clearly demonstrates by his actions an active desire to do me harm. I constantly feel I am being stalked by him. So if any one wants to minimize the nature of this conflict between property owners by claiming that what Carl Fuess did to me was no different than what I did to Carl Fuess, please note the difference. I am a resident whose life style and property have been severely damaged directly by Carl Fuess with the blessing of SCCA.. I have been fighting to defend the value of my property and life style without malice within the parameters of the system. He is an absentee speculator, who has suffered no harm from the items he complained about me. This isn’t an equal battle. I am being harmed and victimized by his actions and the SCCA participation in many of his actions.
This long tiresome letter is only the tip of iceberg of the harassment I have suffered. I hope you will take a serious objective look into this matter. Please reevaluate your position regarding that ugly solid plastic wall and understand how important this is. Sun city does not need plastic walls and fences “to make good neighbors”. It needs good leadership. I have abundant documentation regarding the statements made. I would be glad to supply them to you if so needed.
There is no law against being a mean spirited, knuckle headed jerk. There also is no law against exposing mean spirited knuckle heads to the world. So if sneaky Carl Fuess thinks he can hide behind the disguise of a good considerate Christian citizen, he is mistaken. The community needs to know there is a vicious wolf in sheep’ clothing running loose in this community. Other innocent residents need to know what price they will pay if they dare to fight for their rights to maintain their life style and property value. This is why I’ll be sending copies of this letter to the many concerned people listed at the close of this letter. . . .
It's been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt the CC&R's and the capricious enforcement of them fails to protect the value of our properties. All it does is harass residents. Isn't it just a bit embarrasssing to be designated a blighted area after being constantly told we are paying dues to have our property values protected? Isn't that why SCCA board keeps Donald Miller on the pay roll? The residents of Sun City are senior adults, not children and not criminals and not charity cases. Do we really need to be spied upon as if we were? Other than take our money and harass us, just what does the board do for us? As far as the swimming pool and work shops go, we don't need an entire HOA to run them. Any single manager could do that for far less the cost. This HOA is like a black box with a button. Push the button and a little hand comes out and turns itself off. Sun City residents don't need an HOA whose only purpose is self perpetuation.
For some perverse reason the SCCA Board seems to think being an age 55 senior community is a major benefit. If so, just what are the benefits? Don Weddle was recently quoted in the Press Enterprise justifying the codes enforcement officers because some homes might have people under 55 living in the Core. (Isn't that a real threat to society?) Would someone please tell me what is so important about keeping the age limit to 55? People are senior adults at 45. Another proof that CC&R's do not protect property values is the age limit of 55. What do you think would happen to the property values in the core if the age were dropped to 45?
CC&R's were written by lawyers over 45 years ago based upon condominium standards.The core of Sun City is made up of single family homes. Most of the issues in the CC&R'S are stupid, ridicules, invasive, too restrictrive, and violate human rights.They are also poorly written as they are contradictory, vague, and left to arbitrary interpretation. However, SCCA'S enforcement of them is capricious, reclacitrant and cruel. The CC&R'S used by the SCCA are neither divine, Gospel nor the Bible. They were created by man with out foresight for the life styles in at the turn of the century. What is created or written by man can be changed by man. The CC&R's have been the source of conflicts between neighbors and the SCCA for years. They have been used as a sword and a whip against residents and made their lives a living hell. This has robbed members of the quiet enjoyment of their home. The SCCA claimed they do so to protect property values. This is a lie. Sun City is declared a blighted area. Under SCCA leadership, Sun City has gone down in value in relationship to the new communities that are built to our borders. It is time to put a moratorium on these stupid CC&R's and start planning to bring Sun City into the Twenty First Century and eventually the City of Menifee Valley. Edit Text
letter to Don Weddle continue. . .
I take #9 to clearly mean that neither fence nor landscaping should be planned that blocks the view of any adjacent lot. What seems to take precedence in the language of #9 is the importance of maintaining the view. Obviously, the first concern is protecting resident’s golf course views. That is the primary purpose of the CC&R’s. Views are the reason people choose to live on the golf course. Good view lots bring premiums. One item that is perfectly clear in CC&R#9 is “. . . no solid wall. . .” any where between the lots. The plastic wall erected by Carl Fuess is solid. How is it SCCA can bend or ignore the rules for him and do nothing to protect me? ? ? Am I not also a paid member in good standing? There is everything in the Del Web design of Sun City, tradition, intent, and CC&R#9 that suggests it is not O.K. to build a fence where it will block the neighbor’s golf course view. As a realtor of thirty years having worked on many new home communities, I can assure you protecting a golf course lot view is the highest and best interpretation of that CC&R#9.
Many things people have done prior to 1993 have been grandfathered. The two foot block wall along the adjacent property line to my neighbor was built when this home was built. Why then, is it not considered “grandfathered in” and accepted the only fence necessary between the properties? How could SCCA so flagrantly violate 40 years of tradition between these properties by permitting a six foot solid plastic wall. Plastic wasn’t a material that was used for fencing way back in the “60’s. How could the writer of CC&R #9 have known to exclude plastic as an undesirable material? How, then is the code enforcer permitted to condone the use of that horrible material? To date, the only plastic fence in Sun City Core is the one built next door to me. Originally, Del Web had an architectural review board that would have denied the use of such a horrible material. Today materials are supposed to be approved by at least two board member. Did any two board members make such an approval? If so, is heavy solid plastic fencing meant for ranches going to be the trend in Sun City?
In the eyes of the law it might appear both neighbors are guilty of something. However every case has elements that make it unique. Every situation must be judged on the pertinent facts. From the surface, it appears as if two cranky, stubborn people are having a battle of wills. Taking a closer look will show it is quite a different picture. It doesn’t take a mental giant to recognize the circumstances of each neighbor is entirely different. One neighbor is a living resident who plans to stay there until death do her part. The other is an absentee investor whose only purpose is to sell for profit and move on. One lot is on the corner of a busy street. The other is an inside lot. There is a clear right and wrong situation here. There is an innocent victim. There is a bad guy. Consequently the same arguments are not going to apply equally to both. For example, when I first realized a six foot solid plastic wall was going to be erected and Fuess was too belligerent to be reasonable, I went to SCCA and filed a complaint against Carl Fuess. I also went to the building department to check on the concrete damn he built next to our property line. When he threw one of my potted plants at me and seriously injured my right arm, I filed a police report against him. When I sent a letter to the broker who is marketing his house, I was merely alerting him of a DRE disclosure law. Carl Fuess took it as if I were trying to prevent him from selling his place. (He evidently wants some unsuspecting family to buy his over priced by $60,000 property and let them deal with a controversial fence he built.) All my actions were hopeless attempts to protect myself, my property, and my peaceful life style I had enjoyed from 1998 to July 2004.
Carl Fuess damaged my concrete patio by cutting a wedge eight inches deep and cracking a large corner from the slab. He refuses to compensate me for the damage.(not the SCCA problem) He arbitrarily cut two inches of the patio slab claiming it was encroaching on his property. He did so without the benefit of a licensed surveyor. He talked to as many neighbors as he could trying to get them to say something negative about me. He perjured himself in a sworn statement in a petition for a TRO. Carl Fuess also filed complaints to SCCA that I was operating a business from my home. (If I were, how did that hurt him?) When that failed, he complained to the County building department I added a room without a permit. (If it were so, how did that space interfere with the quality of his life?) When that failed, he complained to SCCA about weeds in front of my house. (This was the first letter I ever got from the SCCA about weeds since I moved here in 1998). As late as April 29, 2005, I received a letter from SCCA claiming a six foot block wall that was built by Del Web when this house was built was in violation of CC&R#9. That wall, built for security reasons was grandfathered in. Yet, I was told by SCCA it was a violation and I had to take it down to three feet 25 feet the rear property line. In each and every one of these issues Carl Fuess used SCCA in an effort to hurt me. Not one of the issues Carl Fuess has attempted to use against me impinges upon his personal life style, value of his property next door or in Wildomar. The removal of a wall that enlarged an existing interior space, my little quiet home office, nor six foot block security wall between my property and Murrieta RD. in no way shape or form caused him harm, inconvenience, or economic loss. All those complaints, plus his conspiracy with a certain Sun City Broker to slander me and do me harm in the civil courts were done with pure malice. He clearly demonstrates by his actions an active desire to do me harm. I constantly feel I am being stalked by him. So if any one wants to minimize the nature of this conflict between property owners by claiming that what Carl Fuess did to me was no different than what I did to Carl Fuess, please note the difference. I am a resident whose life style and property have been severely damaged directly by Carl Fuess with the blessing of SCCA.. I have been fighting to defend the value of my property and life style without malice within the parameters of the system. He is an absentee speculator, who has suffered no harm from the items he complained about me. This isn’t an equal battle. I am being harmed and victimized by his actions and the SCCA participation in many of his actions.
This long tiresome letter is only the tip of iceberg of the harassment I have suffered. I hope you will take a serious objective look into this matter. Please reevaluate your position regarding that ugly solid plastic wall and understand how important this is. Sun city does not need plastic walls and fences “to make good neighbors”. It needs good leadership. I have abundant documentation regarding the statements made. I would be glad to supply them to you if so needed.
There is no law against being a mean spirited, knuckle headed jerk. There also is no law against exposing mean spirited knuckle heads to the world. So if sneaky Carl Fuess thinks he can hide behind the disguise of a good considerate Christian citizen, he is mistaken. The community needs to know there is a vicious wolf in sheep’ clothing running loose in this community. Other innocent residents need to know what price they will pay if they dare to fight for their rights to maintain their life style and property value. This is why I’ll be sending copies of this letter to the many concerned people listed at the close of this letter. . . .
CC&R's, Control, & Property Values
Sun City is a designated blighted area!
Cities of the Living Dead or
10 Strikes why senior only communities are a very bad idea
Yes, idea of 55+ communities has become very popular in the last twenty five or so years. The senior only community brochures are gorgeous. The life style the brochures present is retirement paradise. They should be. The developers paid $100,000 plus to sell a dream. The brochures have been psychologically designed to convince young seniors their community offers a way of life people always wanted but couldn’t afford or had to wait until the last child graduated college or got married. The developers, at long last, created a life style that offers everything from security gates, swimming, golf, club houses for avid bridge and other board game players, arts & crafts, boating, horse back riding, minimum property up keep because the association does it all for an affordable price. They promise a home owners association (HOA) run by the titleholders. Best of all is no little noisy skate boarding brats will be seen or heard in this utopia! Free at last! Free at last. Peace and quiet from the obnoxious noise of children! Who wouldn’t want to live in paradise?
The brand new developments are seductively gorgeous from the outside. While they haven’t all been sold out, seniors are anxious to buy believing they will get all that paradise offers and a big appreciation on their investment, too. The seniors are young and still full of vitality at the time they choose to buy into the community. They whole heartedly believe living in a deed restricted community will keep their property values up because the restrictions will keep their neighbors under control. About 10% of titleholders living in any senior community think they are great. The first thing they will say is how much they enjoy the peace and quiet of no children. They don’t seem to notice the price titleholders pay for no children around the community isn’t worth the price of the liabilities they face? Most of seniors are so hard of hearing they wouldn’t hear children any way!
Deed restricted senior communities are a net made of thousands of laws that diminish property owner’s Constitutional and legal rights. The thousands of laws are interpreted in an arbitrary manner by the HOA Boards, management companies, their attorneys, arbitrators and judges. Hopeful people blinded by the hype and failing to see through the veils of illusion have been standing in line to buy into a nightmare. HOA’s, legally have their hands on titleholders’ pocket books and property. The way it exists today, titleholders have very little to almost no judicial recourse in the event of a dispute between members and the association. In the event of a conflict between a resident and the association, the dream turns into a nightmare. Take a look at the hard reality.
Strike One
Most people retire on a fixed income that fails to increase as rapidly as the cost of living. No matter how reasonable the monthly HOA dues are in the beginning, eventually it comes to a time they have to be raised. They can be raised as much as 20% per year every year. It doesn’t take too many years before the dues become exorbitant. Refusal or failure to pay these dues (no matter what the reason) will result in fines. The fine will be converted into liens which will lead to non judicial foreclosure upon a resident’s property. Even if the property is owned free and clear by the titleholder, if the dues remain unpaid, titleholders can be foreclosed upon. Fines for failure to pay dues are not the only fines that can be imposed. If the Board accuses a titleholder of failure to comply with one of the endless petty rules, whether or not it is so, the titleholder can be fined! Illness or financial hardship is no excuse. Failure to pay monthly dues or fines will ultimately lead to foreclosure. By excessive fining of seniors temporarily living in assisted living facilities, they have legal cause for non judicial foreclosure upon the luckless senior. How safe is senior’s investment?
The power of non judicial foreclosure also exists in non senior deed restricted communities. The difference is the titleholder’s is much younger, income is usually not fixed and the property isn’t going to be their last.
Strike Two
Deed restricted titles are inferior to all other titles.
“. . .it is not an “investment” in the financial sense, because it is not under the homeowner’s full control. . .
When you purchase in a common interest development you are banking on only one thing: marketability. . .” Villa Appalling,by Donie Vanitzian
When real estate markets go side ways, the first communities to suffer major depreciation are deed restricted senior communities. The last places for them to appreciate when the market returns in favor of sellers are deed restricted communities. They are a double whammy.
a. Deed restricted communities are less desirable and harder to market because of the excessive rules and the monthly HOA dues.
b. It is more difficult to obtain loans because lenders want to access HOA Board minutes to assess the competency of the Board
c. The buyers’ market for senior housing is reduced by 60% or more
This means if a senior has to sell his home because he needs to go to an assisted living home, chances are it will sit vacant for a very long time. If there is a mortgage on it, he may have trouble paying it, the HOA dues and the assisted living costs. Renting the unit would be the next best solution. However, many of the communities have rental restrictions. That could make it impossible to rent the unit in hard times. That will definitely lead to non judicial foreclosure.
Strike Three
Senior communities have become the dumping ground of convicted pedophiles. This is an automatic creation of a criminal society.
Senior communities are visible crime targets and are among the most vulnerable in our population are the elderly. 55+ only communities concentrate a large population of elderly in one location. The crudest thief knows how easy it is to break and enter a senior’s home. Some of them do it in broad day light with the senior home. One thief detains the elder at the front door while the other breaks in the back! Senior only communities have become a Mecca to the barracudas and sharks who know precisely how to survive and profit off helpless, needy seniors. Where there is a senior only community, there is a swarm of flim/flam people, con artists, back stabbers, and cork twisters who can fleece a senior so smoothly, the person doesn’t even recognize he/she has been robbed.
These vultures become self appointed care givers, pretend to be relatives, marry the seniors, or simply pose as well intentioned do-gooders who ultimately get their hands on senior’s money and property. They use many tricks. They find seniors who have no known relatives or near by friends. Senior communities are plagued with these bottom feeders lurking in the shadows. Gates don’t stop thieves or scoundrels who prey upon the elderly. Thieves have no problem getting past gates. Often, it is the elderly who unwittingly invite them in. Among this collection of ill intentioned smiling faces are HOA members and even some board members.
Strike Four
Seniors suffer the loss of privacy rights. All privacy is gone once a buyer has taken possession of property in a senior community. The HOA has the legal right under the Unruh Act to demand private information. The titleholder must agree to show proof of age to the HOA Association prior to occupancy and every two years there after. The right to live and grow old was once sacred and private. Visitors and guests were once no one’s business but the titleholder. Titleholders are required to give to the association the name and proof of age of a visitor who stays longer than a month. Titleholder’s children or grandchildren are only allowed to stay one month if they are younger than 55. A doctor’s note must be obtained and presented to the association if a care giver younger than 55 is going to live in the residence. Failure to comply will result in fines which will turn into liens which can lead to non judicial foreclosure upon the senior’s property.
Strike Five
Retirement communities interfere with the rights of families of helping their children in times of emergency or crisis. Living in a 55+ only community restricts titleholders from allowing their children or grandchildren to live with them for longer than periods of one month should an emergency or crisis arise in the lives of their children. In a case in one community, the grandchildren’s parents were killed in a car crash, the grandparents were not be permitted to let the grandchildren live with them. The HOA forced them to sell.
d. In today’s tough economic times seniors’ children may suffer serious economic set backs, and may need to move in with their families for awhile. If their children are under age 55, the HOA will forbid it claiming it is a violation on the Unruh Act
e. The family will be forced to sell or move out if it wants to raise its own grandchildren due to unexpected tragedy
Strike Six
As people in retirement communities age their interest in voting wanes.
The majority of first buyers in newly built senior communities are in their mid fifties to early sixties. They still feel as if they can conquer the world and have time for a swim or game of golf. They are planning this purchase to be until death do them part. This means in twenty five years from the time the community is totally sold, the majority of the community population will be seventy five to eighty years old. Aging doesn’t come alone.
“Health problems in older adults cause slower reaction time, reduced vision and hearing, impaired body movement, and slower decision making. Health condition such as glaucoma, arthritis, stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, etc.. . .” California DMV Driver’s Hand Bookl
Because of this natural aging process, seniors’ focus change from objective to subjective. At age 85 going on 90, they are now more concerned with living through another day with out pain, or crisis. Will they get their meds in time or have enough money to pay for them. Seniors become apathetic, lose interest in community activities. All the senior clubs and activities have dwindled down. Most of the clubs are lucky if 10% of the members participate. Consequently the introduction of new ideas, understanding of current events, changing systems, computers and new technology, staying informed and up to date is often lost upon the majority senior population of the now very old community. Ultimately it is very difficult for senior associations to even get a quorum for required voting. The voters often don’t realize the issues for which they are voting in favor are not in their best interest, against their own rights, and often illegal.
When the majority of the community’s population has become too old to understand, it is not very difficult for a handful of younger and more alert senior members with hidden agendas to grab power and control the rest of community. This is the perfect blue print for power hungry, unethical people to create malevolent HOA Boards. Often Boards and their property management companies are acting illegally and the titleholders don’t even know it. Because of the lack of any specified requirements to serve on the board, quite often the board doesn’t even know when it is acting illegally.
Strike Seven
Quite often, the people who serve on the boards are unqualified and unscrupulous.
“When criminal liability is not charged against the “criminals” in an association, then the titleholders become the Human Capital used to fund the criminal activities and wrong doing.” D. Vanitzian author of Villa Appalling, Destroying the Myth of Affordable Living
Under current legal system there are absolutely no criteria or qualifications for people to serve on HOA Boards. This means any one who is popular enough with the association members can be and usually is elected to the Board. Many of those who serve on these boards never even graduated high school. Since the average titleholder has no past experience in serving on the Board, this means the average HOA Board has no experience. This is where it gets frightening. The inexperienced board has its iron clad grip on the titleholders’ money!
“Titleholders fund the excesses of errant boards and their errant third party vendors and agents because the California laws have no meaningful incentive for deference of such crimes when they occur in residential common interest development.” D. Vanitzian (author of Villa Appalling, Destroying the Myth of Affordable Living )
Strike Eight
Board members receive benefits at the price of the titleholders. Many buyers of deed restricted properties don’t understand the negative affects of HOA boards. They like the idea of an association governing the community in which they plan to live. They mistakenly believe it controls their neighbors and thus keeps up property values.
Another myth some titleholders believe is because the Board members are all volunteers they receive no remuneration or reward, they are above reproach. Any titleholder who believes that needs to take a second look to understand why people so selflessly volunteer.
“What of the board director who does not receive a "financial benefit" for his services on the board? There are also non-economic benefits for being a director. In one such situation a board director was known to "get off" by signing his name as the association's C.E.O. This allowed him to represent himself to the outside world as a "somebody" where he would have otherwise been a "nobody." Playing C.E.O. and receiving the non-economic benefits of "recognition" accolades, plaques, applause, and the like, are no different than the $15.00 haircut. Why? Because they deprive the titleholders of full advantage of the corporate protocol at the expense of an inept board director who has nothing better to do than waste his position on the board and misuse authority => for no other reason than "he can." [FN1] The same can be said for the board director who is a "yes man" to a management company or association advisors. Actions like these should be considered a WASTE of corporate assets--the assets being valuable time lost that cannot be regained at any cost due to the connivance individuals merely sitting on the board of directors because it makes him/them feel important or boosts their collective egos. Doing "nothing" but sucking up to vendors is also costly and it is a breach of the board's fiduciary duty to every owner who has an interest in property and whose assets are at risk in that development. [FN1]
Board directors are supposed to be independent thinking decision makers. Playing "follow the leader" is a breach of duty, especially when the "leader" is a board director beholden to a vendor with a contract at that association. It is also a breach of duty to "follow" third party vendors AS IF they are leaders, and to do the same with management companies, their personnel, association advisors, or managers in general places the association and all its titleholders at risk. The board's duty is to supervise and oversee every such entity without fail and to NOT follow them to the grave or jail, whichever the case may be. Yet at the same time, every board of directors are vested with the authority to, in a sense, criminalize and punish the behavior and actions of their neighbors who own property and reside under the same corporate umbrella that the board director controls.” [FN1] Donie Vanitzian, author of Villa Appalling, Destroying the Myth of Affordable Living
Strike Nine
Opposing information about vital HOA issues is never available. Titleholders need as much information as possible to remain informed and make objective choices and decisions. Pro and con facts are vital in decision making. The unwritten HOA rule is the only information titleholders receive about their HOA is from the Board or its property management company. Such information is biased and incomplete. There is no opposing information to show consequences, possible liabilities, negative affects upon the titleholder, or any other price it may cost the titleholder. This limits the members’ ability to vote objectively.
In spite of flagrant wrong doings by association boards, the local news papers have an indifferent attitude towards titleholders’ problems and either refuse to do stories about them or write stories in favor of the boards. They never take on the belly of the issues straight forward.
Strike Ten
It is psychologically unhealthy for elderly people to see only elderly people. Senior only communities segregate elders from the main stream of life. They isolate them and minimize their sense of value to their community. There is little for them to do in the running of their communities. The property management company and the board retain all the control. It’s indirectly telling senior titleholders they are no longer needed. So they can be put to pasture. It is well known that the majority of people die within six months to a year of retirement because their sense of value in life been lost.
Any health care person trained to work with the elderly will admit the worst experience for a healthy senior is to remain in the constant company of other seniors. The continued sight of only other elderly people is a mirror of their own aging and an unconscious reminder death is near. The unconscious thought of near future death reduces the enthusiasm for the quality of life. Often elderly people have difficulty getting along with one another. They can’t stand the site of other aging people.
It is unsafe to only have elderly neighbors. Senior only communities are unhealthy communities. Neighbors need to look out for one another. Often seniors become isolated. If a senior has a fall or is in need of assistance, chances are neither neighbor will hear nor be aware of the problem. If they are, they might be unable to help. Either neighbor is approximately the same age and is also suffering with his/her own health problems. If an occasional favor or errand is needed like picking something up at the store, bringing in the newspaper, or taking out the trash there is no neighbor capable of doing so. They either never talk to their neighbors or continuously fight with them. Often mean spirited titleholders use the board as a whip against their neighbors continually reporting them for any and every infraction of rules they can. Having to constantly deal with so called codes compliance people destroys a seniors’ quiet enjoyment of his own home and punishes the titleholder with excessive stress. This misery between neighbors is miserable enough for non seniors. It is pure hell for the elderly. They need to enjoy their spoonful of years.
These communities are the bane of America today! They have undermined the very foundation of American’s private property rights and Constitutional rights. They have demeaned the elderly. Personally, I think every developer who builds a senior community or any kind of deed restricted community should be tried for treason. The Department of Real Estate has failed big time to properly protect the consumer. The lawyers who have turned representing HOA’s and property management companies into a major industry should be disbarred. The Judges who rule in favor of the HOA Boards against the home owner, need to go back to school and studies the Constitution and Ethics then tried for treason.
This article is based upon ten years of experience and research the governing laws of deed restricted communities, the problems, issues of other deed restricted communities, living, and being a titleholder for over ten years in two 55+ HOA communities. If you want more information and are connected to the inter net the following web sites have abundant information about horrors of deed restricted communities; AHRC.com, Cotobuzz.com, and Spa-shout.org. Two of the best written books on this subject are Villa Appalling, Destroying the Myth of Affordable Living and California Common Interest Development—Home Owner’s Guide by Donie Vanitzian
By Therese Daniels © April 19, 2008
Does Sun City really need CC&R's and an HOA?
It's been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt the CC&R's and the capricious enforcement of them fails to protect the value of our properties. All it does is harass residents. Isn't it just a bit embarrasssing to be designated a blighted area after being constantly told we are paying dues to have our property values protected? Isn't that why SCCA board keeps Donald Miller on the pay roll? The residents of Sun City are senior adults, not children and not criminals and not charity cases. Do we really need to be spied upon as if we were? Other than take our money and harass us, just what does the board do for us? As far as the swimming pool and work shops go, we don't need an entire HOA to run them. Any single manager could do that for far less the cost. This HOA is like a black box with a button. Push the button and a little hand comes out and turns itself off. Sun City residents don't need an HOA whose only purpose is self perpetuation.
For some perverse reason the SCCA Board seems to think being an age 55 senior community is a major benefit. If so, just what are the benefits? Don Weddle was recently quoted in the Press Enterprise justifying the codes enforcement officers because some homes might have people under 55 living in the Core. (Isn't that a real threat to society?) Would someone please tell me what is so important about keeping the age limit to 55? People are senior adults at 45. Another proof that CC&R's do not protect property values is the age limit of 55. What do you think would happen to the property values in the core if the age were dropped to 45?
CC&R's were written by lawyers over 45 years ago based upon condominium standards.The core of Sun City is made up of single family homes. Most of the issues in the CC&R'S are stupid, ridicules, invasive, too restrictrive, and violate human rights.They are also poorly written as they are contradictory, vague, and left to arbitrary interpretation. However, SCCA'S enforcement of them is capricious, reclacitrant and cruel. The CC&R'S used by the SCCA are neither divine, Gospel nor the Bible. They were created by man with out foresight for the life styles in at the turn of the century. What is created or written by man can be changed by man. The CC&R's have been the source of conflicts between neighbors and the SCCA for years. They have been used as a sword and a whip against residents and made their lives a living hell. This has robbed members of the quiet enjoyment of their home. The SCCA claimed they do so to protect property values. This is a lie. Sun City is declared a blighted area. Under SCCA leadership, Sun City has gone down in value in relationship to the new communities that are built to our borders. It is time to put a moratorium on these stupid CC&R's and start planning to bring Sun City into the Twenty First Century and eventually the City of Menifee Valley. Edit Text
letter to Don Weddle continue. . .
I take #9 to clearly mean that neither fence nor landscaping should be planned that blocks the view of any adjacent lot. What seems to take precedence in the language of #9 is the importance of maintaining the view. Obviously, the first concern is protecting resident’s golf course views. That is the primary purpose of the CC&R’s. Views are the reason people choose to live on the golf course. Good view lots bring premiums. One item that is perfectly clear in CC&R#9 is “. . . no solid wall. . .” any where between the lots. The plastic wall erected by Carl Fuess is solid. How is it SCCA can bend or ignore the rules for him and do nothing to protect me? ? ? Am I not also a paid member in good standing? There is everything in the Del Web design of Sun City, tradition, intent, and CC&R#9 that suggests it is not O.K. to build a fence where it will block the neighbor’s golf course view. As a realtor of thirty years having worked on many new home communities, I can assure you protecting a golf course lot view is the highest and best interpretation of that CC&R#9.
Many things people have done prior to 1993 have been grandfathered. The two foot block wall along the adjacent property line to my neighbor was built when this home was built. Why then, is it not considered “grandfathered in” and accepted the only fence necessary between the properties? How could SCCA so flagrantly violate 40 years of tradition between these properties by permitting a six foot solid plastic wall. Plastic wasn’t a material that was used for fencing way back in the “60’s. How could the writer of CC&R #9 have known to exclude plastic as an undesirable material? How, then is the code enforcer permitted to condone the use of that horrible material? To date, the only plastic fence in Sun City Core is the one built next door to me. Originally, Del Web had an architectural review board that would have denied the use of such a horrible material. Today materials are supposed to be approved by at least two board member. Did any two board members make such an approval? If so, is heavy solid plastic fencing meant for ranches going to be the trend in Sun City?
In the eyes of the law it might appear both neighbors are guilty of something. However every case has elements that make it unique. Every situation must be judged on the pertinent facts. From the surface, it appears as if two cranky, stubborn people are having a battle of wills. Taking a closer look will show it is quite a different picture. It doesn’t take a mental giant to recognize the circumstances of each neighbor is entirely different. One neighbor is a living resident who plans to stay there until death do her part. The other is an absentee investor whose only purpose is to sell for profit and move on. One lot is on the corner of a busy street. The other is an inside lot. There is a clear right and wrong situation here. There is an innocent victim. There is a bad guy. Consequently the same arguments are not going to apply equally to both. For example, when I first realized a six foot solid plastic wall was going to be erected and Fuess was too belligerent to be reasonable, I went to SCCA and filed a complaint against Carl Fuess. I also went to the building department to check on the concrete damn he built next to our property line. When he threw one of my potted plants at me and seriously injured my right arm, I filed a police report against him. When I sent a letter to the broker who is marketing his house, I was merely alerting him of a DRE disclosure law. Carl Fuess took it as if I were trying to prevent him from selling his place. (He evidently wants some unsuspecting family to buy his over priced by $60,000 property and let them deal with a controversial fence he built.) All my actions were hopeless attempts to protect myself, my property, and my peaceful life style I had enjoyed from 1998 to July 2004.
Carl Fuess damaged my concrete patio by cutting a wedge eight inches deep and cracking a large corner from the slab. He refuses to compensate me for the damage.(not the SCCA problem) He arbitrarily cut two inches of the patio slab claiming it was encroaching on his property. He did so without the benefit of a licensed surveyor. He talked to as many neighbors as he could trying to get them to say something negative about me. He perjured himself in a sworn statement in a petition for a TRO. Carl Fuess also filed complaints to SCCA that I was operating a business from my home. (If I were, how did that hurt him?) When that failed, he complained to the County building department I added a room without a permit. (If it were so, how did that space interfere with the quality of his life?) When that failed, he complained to SCCA about weeds in front of my house. (This was the first letter I ever got from the SCCA about weeds since I moved here in 1998). As late as April 29, 2005, I received a letter from SCCA claiming a six foot block wall that was built by Del Web when this house was built was in violation of CC&R#9. That wall, built for security reasons was grandfathered in. Yet, I was told by SCCA it was a violation and I had to take it down to three feet 25 feet the rear property line. In each and every one of these issues Carl Fuess used SCCA in an effort to hurt me. Not one of the issues Carl Fuess has attempted to use against me impinges upon his personal life style, value of his property next door or in Wildomar. The removal of a wall that enlarged an existing interior space, my little quiet home office, nor six foot block security wall between my property and Murrieta RD. in no way shape or form caused him harm, inconvenience, or economic loss. All those complaints, plus his conspiracy with a certain Sun City Broker to slander me and do me harm in the civil courts were done with pure malice. He clearly demonstrates by his actions an active desire to do me harm. I constantly feel I am being stalked by him. So if any one wants to minimize the nature of this conflict between property owners by claiming that what Carl Fuess did to me was no different than what I did to Carl Fuess, please note the difference. I am a resident whose life style and property have been severely damaged directly by Carl Fuess with the blessing of SCCA.. I have been fighting to defend the value of my property and life style without malice within the parameters of the system. He is an absentee speculator, who has suffered no harm from the items he complained about me. This isn’t an equal battle. I am being harmed and victimized by his actions and the SCCA participation in many of his actions.
This long tiresome letter is only the tip of iceberg of the harassment I have suffered. I hope you will take a serious objective look into this matter. Please reevaluate your position regarding that ugly solid plastic wall and understand how important this is. Sun city does not need plastic walls and fences “to make good neighbors”. It needs good leadership. I have abundant documentation regarding the statements made. I would be glad to supply them to you if so needed.
There is no law against being a mean spirited, knuckle headed jerk. There also is no law against exposing mean spirited knuckle heads to the world. So if sneaky Carl Fuess thinks he can hide behind the disguise of a good considerate Christian citizen, he is mistaken. The community needs to know there is a vicious wolf in sheep’ clothing running loose in this community. Other innocent residents need to know what price they will pay if they dare to fight for their rights to maintain their life style and property value. This is why I’ll be sending copies of this letter to the many concerned people listed at the close of this letter. . . .
Cities of the Living Dead or
10 Strikes why senior only communities are a very bad idea
Yes, idea of 55+ communities has become very popular in the last twenty five or so years. The senior only community brochures are gorgeous. The life style the brochures present is retirement paradise. They should be. The developers paid $100,000 plus to sell a dream. The brochures have been psychologically designed to convince young seniors their community offers a way of life people always wanted but couldn’t afford or had to wait until the last child graduated college or got married. The developers, at long last, created a life style that offers everything from security gates, swimming, golf, club houses for avid bridge and other board game players, arts & crafts, boating, horse back riding, minimum property up keep because the association does it all for an affordable price. They promise a home owners association (HOA) run by the titleholders. Best of all is no little noisy skate boarding brats will be seen or heard in this utopia! Free at last! Free at last. Peace and quiet from the obnoxious noise of children! Who wouldn’t want to live in paradise?
The brand new developments are seductively gorgeous from the outside. While they haven’t all been sold out, seniors are anxious to buy believing they will get all that paradise offers and a big appreciation on their investment, too. The seniors are young and still full of vitality at the time they choose to buy into the community. They whole heartedly believe living in a deed restricted community will keep their property values up because the restrictions will keep their neighbors under control. About 10% of titleholders living in any senior community think they are great. The first thing they will say is how much they enjoy the peace and quiet of no children. They don’t seem to notice the price titleholders pay for no children around the community isn’t worth the price of the liabilities they face? Most of seniors are so hard of hearing they wouldn’t hear children any way!
Deed restricted senior communities are a net made of thousands of laws that diminish property owner’s Constitutional and legal rights. The thousands of laws are interpreted in an arbitrary manner by the HOA Boards, management companies, their attorneys, arbitrators and judges. Hopeful people blinded by the hype and failing to see through the veils of illusion have been standing in line to buy into a nightmare. HOA’s, legally have their hands on titleholders’ pocket books and property. The way it exists today, titleholders have very little to almost no judicial recourse in the event of a dispute between members and the association. In the event of a conflict between a resident and the association, the dream turns into a nightmare. Take a look at the hard reality.
Strike One
Most people retire on a fixed income that fails to increase as rapidly as the cost of living. No matter how reasonable the monthly HOA dues are in the beginning, eventually it comes to a time they have to be raised. They can be raised as much as 20% per year every year. It doesn’t take too many years before the dues become exorbitant. Refusal or failure to pay these dues (no matter what the reason) will result in fines. The fine will be converted into liens which will lead to non judicial foreclosure upon a resident’s property. Even if the property is owned free and clear by the titleholder, if the dues remain unpaid, titleholders can be foreclosed upon. Fines for failure to pay dues are not the only fines that can be imposed. If the Board accuses a titleholder of failure to comply with one of the endless petty rules, whether or not it is so, the titleholder can be fined! Illness or financial hardship is no excuse. Failure to pay monthly dues or fines will ultimately lead to foreclosure. By excessive fining of seniors temporarily living in assisted living facilities, they have legal cause for non judicial foreclosure upon the luckless senior. How safe is senior’s investment?
The power of non judicial foreclosure also exists in non senior deed restricted communities. The difference is the titleholder’s is much younger, income is usually not fixed and the property isn’t going to be their last.
Strike Two
Deed restricted titles are inferior to all other titles.
“. . .it is not an “investment” in the financial sense, because it is not under the homeowner’s full control. . .
When you purchase in a common interest development you are banking on only one thing: marketability. . .” Villa Appalling,by Donie Vanitzian
When real estate markets go side ways, the first communities to suffer major depreciation are deed restricted senior communities. The last places for them to appreciate when the market returns in favor of sellers are deed restricted communities. They are a double whammy.
a. Deed restricted communities are less desirable and harder to market because of the excessive rules and the monthly HOA dues.
b. It is more difficult to obtain loans because lenders want to access HOA Board minutes to assess the competency of the Board
c. The buyers’ market for senior housing is reduced by 60% or more
This means if a senior has to sell his home because he needs to go to an assisted living home, chances are it will sit vacant for a very long time. If there is a mortgage on it, he may have trouble paying it, the HOA dues and the assisted living costs. Renting the unit would be the next best solution. However, many of the communities have rental restrictions. That could make it impossible to rent the unit in hard times. That will definitely lead to non judicial foreclosure.
Strike Three
Senior communities have become the dumping ground of convicted pedophiles. This is an automatic creation of a criminal society.
Senior communities are visible crime targets and are among the most vulnerable in our population are the elderly. 55+ only communities concentrate a large population of elderly in one location. The crudest thief knows how easy it is to break and enter a senior’s home. Some of them do it in broad day light with the senior home. One thief detains the elder at the front door while the other breaks in the back! Senior only communities have become a Mecca to the barracudas and sharks who know precisely how to survive and profit off helpless, needy seniors. Where there is a senior only community, there is a swarm of flim/flam people, con artists, back stabbers, and cork twisters who can fleece a senior so smoothly, the person doesn’t even recognize he/she has been robbed.
These vultures become self appointed care givers, pretend to be relatives, marry the seniors, or simply pose as well intentioned do-gooders who ultimately get their hands on senior’s money and property. They use many tricks. They find seniors who have no known relatives or near by friends. Senior communities are plagued with these bottom feeders lurking in the shadows. Gates don’t stop thieves or scoundrels who prey upon the elderly. Thieves have no problem getting past gates. Often, it is the elderly who unwittingly invite them in. Among this collection of ill intentioned smiling faces are HOA members and even some board members.
Strike Four
Seniors suffer the loss of privacy rights. All privacy is gone once a buyer has taken possession of property in a senior community. The HOA has the legal right under the Unruh Act to demand private information. The titleholder must agree to show proof of age to the HOA Association prior to occupancy and every two years there after. The right to live and grow old was once sacred and private. Visitors and guests were once no one’s business but the titleholder. Titleholders are required to give to the association the name and proof of age of a visitor who stays longer than a month. Titleholder’s children or grandchildren are only allowed to stay one month if they are younger than 55. A doctor’s note must be obtained and presented to the association if a care giver younger than 55 is going to live in the residence. Failure to comply will result in fines which will turn into liens which can lead to non judicial foreclosure upon the senior’s property.
Strike Five
Retirement communities interfere with the rights of families of helping their children in times of emergency or crisis. Living in a 55+ only community restricts titleholders from allowing their children or grandchildren to live with them for longer than periods of one month should an emergency or crisis arise in the lives of their children. In a case in one community, the grandchildren’s parents were killed in a car crash, the grandparents were not be permitted to let the grandchildren live with them. The HOA forced them to sell.
d. In today’s tough economic times seniors’ children may suffer serious economic set backs, and may need to move in with their families for awhile. If their children are under age 55, the HOA will forbid it claiming it is a violation on the Unruh Act
e. The family will be forced to sell or move out if it wants to raise its own grandchildren due to unexpected tragedy
Strike Six
As people in retirement communities age their interest in voting wanes.
The majority of first buyers in newly built senior communities are in their mid fifties to early sixties. They still feel as if they can conquer the world and have time for a swim or game of golf. They are planning this purchase to be until death do them part. This means in twenty five years from the time the community is totally sold, the majority of the community population will be seventy five to eighty years old. Aging doesn’t come alone.
“Health problems in older adults cause slower reaction time, reduced vision and hearing, impaired body movement, and slower decision making. Health condition such as glaucoma, arthritis, stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, etc.. . .” California DMV Driver’s Hand Bookl
Because of this natural aging process, seniors’ focus change from objective to subjective. At age 85 going on 90, they are now more concerned with living through another day with out pain, or crisis. Will they get their meds in time or have enough money to pay for them. Seniors become apathetic, lose interest in community activities. All the senior clubs and activities have dwindled down. Most of the clubs are lucky if 10% of the members participate. Consequently the introduction of new ideas, understanding of current events, changing systems, computers and new technology, staying informed and up to date is often lost upon the majority senior population of the now very old community. Ultimately it is very difficult for senior associations to even get a quorum for required voting. The voters often don’t realize the issues for which they are voting in favor are not in their best interest, against their own rights, and often illegal.
When the majority of the community’s population has become too old to understand, it is not very difficult for a handful of younger and more alert senior members with hidden agendas to grab power and control the rest of community. This is the perfect blue print for power hungry, unethical people to create malevolent HOA Boards. Often Boards and their property management companies are acting illegally and the titleholders don’t even know it. Because of the lack of any specified requirements to serve on the board, quite often the board doesn’t even know when it is acting illegally.
Strike Seven
Quite often, the people who serve on the boards are unqualified and unscrupulous.
“When criminal liability is not charged against the “criminals” in an association, then the titleholders become the Human Capital used to fund the criminal activities and wrong doing.” D. Vanitzian author of Villa Appalling, Destroying the Myth of Affordable Living
Under current legal system there are absolutely no criteria or qualifications for people to serve on HOA Boards. This means any one who is popular enough with the association members can be and usually is elected to the Board. Many of those who serve on these boards never even graduated high school. Since the average titleholder has no past experience in serving on the Board, this means the average HOA Board has no experience. This is where it gets frightening. The inexperienced board has its iron clad grip on the titleholders’ money!
“Titleholders fund the excesses of errant boards and their errant third party vendors and agents because the California laws have no meaningful incentive for deference of such crimes when they occur in residential common interest development.” D. Vanitzian (author of Villa Appalling, Destroying the Myth of Affordable Living )
Strike Eight
Board members receive benefits at the price of the titleholders. Many buyers of deed restricted properties don’t understand the negative affects of HOA boards. They like the idea of an association governing the community in which they plan to live. They mistakenly believe it controls their neighbors and thus keeps up property values.
Another myth some titleholders believe is because the Board members are all volunteers they receive no remuneration or reward, they are above reproach. Any titleholder who believes that needs to take a second look to understand why people so selflessly volunteer.
“What of the board director who does not receive a "financial benefit" for his services on the board? There are also non-economic benefits for being a director. In one such situation a board director was known to "get off" by signing his name as the association's C.E.O. This allowed him to represent himself to the outside world as a "somebody" where he would have otherwise been a "nobody." Playing C.E.O. and receiving the non-economic benefits of "recognition" accolades, plaques, applause, and the like, are no different than the $15.00 haircut. Why? Because they deprive the titleholders of full advantage of the corporate protocol at the expense of an inept board director who has nothing better to do than waste his position on the board and misuse authority => for no other reason than "he can." [FN1] The same can be said for the board director who is a "yes man" to a management company or association advisors. Actions like these should be considered a WASTE of corporate assets--the assets being valuable time lost that cannot be regained at any cost due to the connivance individuals merely sitting on the board of directors because it makes him/them feel important or boosts their collective egos. Doing "nothing" but sucking up to vendors is also costly and it is a breach of the board's fiduciary duty to every owner who has an interest in property and whose assets are at risk in that development. [FN1]
Board directors are supposed to be independent thinking decision makers. Playing "follow the leader" is a breach of duty, especially when the "leader" is a board director beholden to a vendor with a contract at that association. It is also a breach of duty to "follow" third party vendors AS IF they are leaders, and to do the same with management companies, their personnel, association advisors, or managers in general places the association and all its titleholders at risk. The board's duty is to supervise and oversee every such entity without fail and to NOT follow them to the grave or jail, whichever the case may be. Yet at the same time, every board of directors are vested with the authority to, in a sense, criminalize and punish the behavior and actions of their neighbors who own property and reside under the same corporate umbrella that the board director controls.” [FN1] Donie Vanitzian, author of Villa Appalling, Destroying the Myth of Affordable Living
Strike Nine
Opposing information about vital HOA issues is never available. Titleholders need as much information as possible to remain informed and make objective choices and decisions. Pro and con facts are vital in decision making. The unwritten HOA rule is the only information titleholders receive about their HOA is from the Board or its property management company. Such information is biased and incomplete. There is no opposing information to show consequences, possible liabilities, negative affects upon the titleholder, or any other price it may cost the titleholder. This limits the members’ ability to vote objectively.
In spite of flagrant wrong doings by association boards, the local news papers have an indifferent attitude towards titleholders’ problems and either refuse to do stories about them or write stories in favor of the boards. They never take on the belly of the issues straight forward.
Strike Ten
It is psychologically unhealthy for elderly people to see only elderly people. Senior only communities segregate elders from the main stream of life. They isolate them and minimize their sense of value to their community. There is little for them to do in the running of their communities. The property management company and the board retain all the control. It’s indirectly telling senior titleholders they are no longer needed. So they can be put to pasture. It is well known that the majority of people die within six months to a year of retirement because their sense of value in life been lost.
Any health care person trained to work with the elderly will admit the worst experience for a healthy senior is to remain in the constant company of other seniors. The continued sight of only other elderly people is a mirror of their own aging and an unconscious reminder death is near. The unconscious thought of near future death reduces the enthusiasm for the quality of life. Often elderly people have difficulty getting along with one another. They can’t stand the site of other aging people.
It is unsafe to only have elderly neighbors. Senior only communities are unhealthy communities. Neighbors need to look out for one another. Often seniors become isolated. If a senior has a fall or is in need of assistance, chances are neither neighbor will hear nor be aware of the problem. If they are, they might be unable to help. Either neighbor is approximately the same age and is also suffering with his/her own health problems. If an occasional favor or errand is needed like picking something up at the store, bringing in the newspaper, or taking out the trash there is no neighbor capable of doing so. They either never talk to their neighbors or continuously fight with them. Often mean spirited titleholders use the board as a whip against their neighbors continually reporting them for any and every infraction of rules they can. Having to constantly deal with so called codes compliance people destroys a seniors’ quiet enjoyment of his own home and punishes the titleholder with excessive stress. This misery between neighbors is miserable enough for non seniors. It is pure hell for the elderly. They need to enjoy their spoonful of years.
These communities are the bane of America today! They have undermined the very foundation of American’s private property rights and Constitutional rights. They have demeaned the elderly. Personally, I think every developer who builds a senior community or any kind of deed restricted community should be tried for treason. The Department of Real Estate has failed big time to properly protect the consumer. The lawyers who have turned representing HOA’s and property management companies into a major industry should be disbarred. The Judges who rule in favor of the HOA Boards against the home owner, need to go back to school and studies the Constitution and Ethics then tried for treason.
This article is based upon ten years of experience and research the governing laws of deed restricted communities, the problems, issues of other deed restricted communities, living, and being a titleholder for over ten years in two 55+ HOA communities. If you want more information and are connected to the inter net the following web sites have abundant information about horrors of deed restricted communities; AHRC.com, Cotobuzz.com, and Spa-shout.org. Two of the best written books on this subject are Villa Appalling, Destroying the Myth of Affordable Living and California Common Interest Development—Home Owner’s Guide by Donie Vanitzian
By Therese Daniels © April 19, 2008
Does Sun City really need CC&R's and an HOA?
It's been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt the CC&R's and the capricious enforcement of them fails to protect the value of our properties. All it does is harass residents. Isn't it just a bit embarrasssing to be designated a blighted area after being constantly told we are paying dues to have our property values protected? Isn't that why SCCA board keeps Donald Miller on the pay roll? The residents of Sun City are senior adults, not children and not criminals and not charity cases. Do we really need to be spied upon as if we were? Other than take our money and harass us, just what does the board do for us? As far as the swimming pool and work shops go, we don't need an entire HOA to run them. Any single manager could do that for far less the cost. This HOA is like a black box with a button. Push the button and a little hand comes out and turns itself off. Sun City residents don't need an HOA whose only purpose is self perpetuation.
For some perverse reason the SCCA Board seems to think being an age 55 senior community is a major benefit. If so, just what are the benefits? Don Weddle was recently quoted in the Press Enterprise justifying the codes enforcement officers because some homes might have people under 55 living in the Core. (Isn't that a real threat to society?) Would someone please tell me what is so important about keeping the age limit to 55? People are senior adults at 45. Another proof that CC&R's do not protect property values is the age limit of 55. What do you think would happen to the property values in the core if the age were dropped to 45?
CC&R's were written by lawyers over 45 years ago based upon condominium standards.The core of Sun City is made up of single family homes. Most of the issues in the CC&R'S are stupid, ridicules, invasive, too restrictrive, and violate human rights.They are also poorly written as they are contradictory, vague, and left to arbitrary interpretation. However, SCCA'S enforcement of them is capricious, reclacitrant and cruel. The CC&R'S used by the SCCA are neither divine, Gospel nor the Bible. They were created by man with out foresight for the life styles in at the turn of the century. What is created or written by man can be changed by man. The CC&R's have been the source of conflicts between neighbors and the SCCA for years. They have been used as a sword and a whip against residents and made their lives a living hell. This has robbed members of the quiet enjoyment of their home. The SCCA claimed they do so to protect property values. This is a lie. Sun City is declared a blighted area. Under SCCA leadership, Sun City has gone down in value in relationship to the new communities that are built to our borders. It is time to put a moratorium on these stupid CC&R's and start planning to bring Sun City into the Twenty First Century and eventually the City of Menifee Valley. Edit Text
letter to Don Weddle continue. . .
I take #9 to clearly mean that neither fence nor landscaping should be planned that blocks the view of any adjacent lot. What seems to take precedence in the language of #9 is the importance of maintaining the view. Obviously, the first concern is protecting resident’s golf course views. That is the primary purpose of the CC&R’s. Views are the reason people choose to live on the golf course. Good view lots bring premiums. One item that is perfectly clear in CC&R#9 is “. . . no solid wall. . .” any where between the lots. The plastic wall erected by Carl Fuess is solid. How is it SCCA can bend or ignore the rules for him and do nothing to protect me? ? ? Am I not also a paid member in good standing? There is everything in the Del Web design of Sun City, tradition, intent, and CC&R#9 that suggests it is not O.K. to build a fence where it will block the neighbor’s golf course view. As a realtor of thirty years having worked on many new home communities, I can assure you protecting a golf course lot view is the highest and best interpretation of that CC&R#9.
Many things people have done prior to 1993 have been grandfathered. The two foot block wall along the adjacent property line to my neighbor was built when this home was built. Why then, is it not considered “grandfathered in” and accepted the only fence necessary between the properties? How could SCCA so flagrantly violate 40 years of tradition between these properties by permitting a six foot solid plastic wall. Plastic wasn’t a material that was used for fencing way back in the “60’s. How could the writer of CC&R #9 have known to exclude plastic as an undesirable material? How, then is the code enforcer permitted to condone the use of that horrible material? To date, the only plastic fence in Sun City Core is the one built next door to me. Originally, Del Web had an architectural review board that would have denied the use of such a horrible material. Today materials are supposed to be approved by at least two board member. Did any two board members make such an approval? If so, is heavy solid plastic fencing meant for ranches going to be the trend in Sun City?
In the eyes of the law it might appear both neighbors are guilty of something. However every case has elements that make it unique. Every situation must be judged on the pertinent facts. From the surface, it appears as if two cranky, stubborn people are having a battle of wills. Taking a closer look will show it is quite a different picture. It doesn’t take a mental giant to recognize the circumstances of each neighbor is entirely different. One neighbor is a living resident who plans to stay there until death do her part. The other is an absentee investor whose only purpose is to sell for profit and move on. One lot is on the corner of a busy street. The other is an inside lot. There is a clear right and wrong situation here. There is an innocent victim. There is a bad guy. Consequently the same arguments are not going to apply equally to both. For example, when I first realized a six foot solid plastic wall was going to be erected and Fuess was too belligerent to be reasonable, I went to SCCA and filed a complaint against Carl Fuess. I also went to the building department to check on the concrete damn he built next to our property line. When he threw one of my potted plants at me and seriously injured my right arm, I filed a police report against him. When I sent a letter to the broker who is marketing his house, I was merely alerting him of a DRE disclosure law. Carl Fuess took it as if I were trying to prevent him from selling his place. (He evidently wants some unsuspecting family to buy his over priced by $60,000 property and let them deal with a controversial fence he built.) All my actions were hopeless attempts to protect myself, my property, and my peaceful life style I had enjoyed from 1998 to July 2004.
Carl Fuess damaged my concrete patio by cutting a wedge eight inches deep and cracking a large corner from the slab. He refuses to compensate me for the damage.(not the SCCA problem) He arbitrarily cut two inches of the patio slab claiming it was encroaching on his property. He did so without the benefit of a licensed surveyor. He talked to as many neighbors as he could trying to get them to say something negative about me. He perjured himself in a sworn statement in a petition for a TRO. Carl Fuess also filed complaints to SCCA that I was operating a business from my home. (If I were, how did that hurt him?) When that failed, he complained to the County building department I added a room without a permit. (If it were so, how did that space interfere with the quality of his life?) When that failed, he complained to SCCA about weeds in front of my house. (This was the first letter I ever got from the SCCA about weeds since I moved here in 1998). As late as April 29, 2005, I received a letter from SCCA claiming a six foot block wall that was built by Del Web when this house was built was in violation of CC&R#9. That wall, built for security reasons was grandfathered in. Yet, I was told by SCCA it was a violation and I had to take it down to three feet 25 feet the rear property line. In each and every one of these issues Carl Fuess used SCCA in an effort to hurt me. Not one of the issues Carl Fuess has attempted to use against me impinges upon his personal life style, value of his property next door or in Wildomar. The removal of a wall that enlarged an existing interior space, my little quiet home office, nor six foot block security wall between my property and Murrieta RD. in no way shape or form caused him harm, inconvenience, or economic loss. All those complaints, plus his conspiracy with a certain Sun City Broker to slander me and do me harm in the civil courts were done with pure malice. He clearly demonstrates by his actions an active desire to do me harm. I constantly feel I am being stalked by him. So if any one wants to minimize the nature of this conflict between property owners by claiming that what Carl Fuess did to me was no different than what I did to Carl Fuess, please note the difference. I am a resident whose life style and property have been severely damaged directly by Carl Fuess with the blessing of SCCA.. I have been fighting to defend the value of my property and life style without malice within the parameters of the system. He is an absentee speculator, who has suffered no harm from the items he complained about me. This isn’t an equal battle. I am being harmed and victimized by his actions and the SCCA participation in many of his actions.
This long tiresome letter is only the tip of iceberg of the harassment I have suffered. I hope you will take a serious objective look into this matter. Please reevaluate your position regarding that ugly solid plastic wall and understand how important this is. Sun city does not need plastic walls and fences “to make good neighbors”. It needs good leadership. I have abundant documentation regarding the statements made. I would be glad to supply them to you if so needed.
There is no law against being a mean spirited, knuckle headed jerk. There also is no law against exposing mean spirited knuckle heads to the world. So if sneaky Carl Fuess thinks he can hide behind the disguise of a good considerate Christian citizen, he is mistaken. The community needs to know there is a vicious wolf in sheep’ clothing running loose in this community. Other innocent residents need to know what price they will pay if they dare to fight for their rights to maintain their life style and property value. This is why I’ll be sending copies of this letter to the many concerned people listed at the close of this letter. . . .
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Whispered Rumors
Chew on these. Fact or Fiction?
People who love "deed restricted" communities place controlling their neighbors above theirs Constitutional rights. They would rather see a senior move to a convalescent hospital or drop dead than live on a block with a house in need of landscaping or minor repair. These "good" people would never consider offering some hands on help to the failing senior. They are too busy imagining their property values are increasing--which they are not. These same people continually vote against their own best interest. They are aiders and abettors of their own tyranny.People who love HOA's are people who imagine themselves above reproach, therefore they have the right to control the rest of the membership--you and me.
First it was said the sale of Corbett Park was approved by only one vote. When I published that information on the web site they published some idiotic numbers claiming that was the vote count. How can we believe them? They can't even get their lies straight.
When the Civic Association assumed management of Sun City from the Del Web Corporation in the mid '60's, it was required the CC&R's be put to the membership for vote. It is said it was never done. Is it possible the CC&R's with which residents have been badgered are not legal? Is this why the board put them on the special election ballot?
~~~~~~~~~~
By SCCA's board own admission there have been death threats, irate people that border upon violence. This would never happen if they properly managed our business. The bullet proof wall is a silent monument to SCCA's mismanagement. This wall symbolizes to Sun city residents what the Berlin wall symbolized to the world. Dissolve SCCA and take down the bullet proof wall. The end of tyranny is now!
~~~~~~~~~~
It cost $87,097 of membership dues for the salaries of three code' enforcement officers to process approximately 1500 alleged CC&R violators over the height of their oleander bushes, visitors ages, location of trash cans, calling California poppies weeds, and general harassment over trivia. How many residents actually cared whether or not the oleander bushes were 12" higher than the CC&R limit? You can add to that the cost of writing letters and postage. Sun City is a designated blighted area. Other than the codes enforcement officers creating a self perpetuating payroll, what did the members of S.C. Core get for their $87,000 but harassment and intimidation?
~~~~~~~~~~
When Sun City was first developed by Del Web, it was an adult community only. It wasn't until Jean Roberge petitioned residents door to door that it became a 55+ senior community. Wouldn't it be great if the age limit were dropped.
~~~~~~~~~~
If people who file CC&R complaints against their neighbor, know they would be identified to the neighbor, 80% of the frivolous complaints would never occur. What these puny people don't realize is the alleged miscreant already knows who complained.
The arrogance of the board never ceases to amaze me. After all that has been exposed about them and their very bad management, they haven't showed one sign of willingness to take a single corrective measure--like terminating Donald Miller, reviewing the CC& R's in order to diminish the stupid and trivial ones, or take a more compassionate attitude towards the core seniors. They absolutely refuse to admit they do anything wrong. That is what I call jaded.
Would someone please tell me what benefits 98% of the members receive from SCCA Home Owners Association for their $286 yearly dues? What supreme or not so supreme benefits do we get from this association? As far as the swimming pools and hobby shops, how many members actually use them? Why does the majority of members have to pay for the minority of users?
CC&R's were written by lawyers over 45 years ago based upon condominium standards. With a few exceptions, the majority of the membership is made up of single family detached homes. The condominiums have their own separate home owners association that work for their homeowners. Most of the issues in the CC&R'S are stupid, ridicules, invasive, too restrictrive, and violate human rights. The CC&R'S used by the SCCA are not divine. They are neither Gospel nor the Bible. What is created or written by man can be changed by man or members. The CC&R's have been the major source of conflicts between neighbors and the SCCA for years. They have been used as a sword and a whip against residents and made their lives a living hell. This has robbed members of the quiet enjoyment of their home. The SCCA claimed they do so to protect property values. This is a lie. Sun City is declared a blighted area. Under SCCA leadership, Sun City has gone down in value in relationship to the new communities that are built to our borders. It is time to put a moratorium on these stupid CC&R's and start planning to bring Sun City into the Twenty First Century and eventually the City of Menifee Valley.
~~~~~~~~~~
A supporting SCCA member spoke at the August general membership meeting. He got up to make big points with the SCCA Board. He was such a good guy I wanted to invite him home for dinner. He proclaimed in very loud tones: "I don't get it. Rules are rules. Why can't everybody just obey the rules." It was a great thought and I agree with him. So why is it the SCCA Board fails to obey its own rules--rules such as the association laws and by laws, rules such as every American's constitutional rights. It's O.K. for them to break the rules, but they want members to vote them powers to penalize us for the smallest infraction of very arbitrary rules. Well, dear rule follower, you are right. Let's obey the rules starting with the SCCA board.
(sing to jingle bells)
Cityhood, Cityhood is on its way.
No more code compliance or SCCA
No more dues, no more fools
Trespassing in our yards
Cityhood, yes, you should
Send SCCA to Mars!
by Dete Shaw
Dissolve the SCCA. We do not need their management. They need our money.
The Issues - Sun City, Oppression City, Fear City
Since the mid '70's the residents of Sun City have been living behind an iron shroud of oppression. They have been told by the power players it is needed to protect their property values. For years the SCCA Board of directors have been running Sun City as they pleased with little to no opposition from its membership. The few brave souls who did oppose them were so crushed by the SCCA Board, they never raised a voice in oppostion again. This is why so many seniors live in fear of retaliation if they speak about their abuses.When I realized I could no longer ignore the oppressive action of this board, I knew I would have to find a way to crash through the iron shroud that has hung over the silent and defeated souls of the people of Sun City Core. Something had to come forward to give people hope again. That is when I created SHOUT. It worked and is working.
First, we must stop them from doing this. Second, we must join together in the single purpose of dissolving SCCA. Third, we must dissovle SCCA. It is time seniors stop living in oppression and fear.
Boycott CAI. Boycott CAI.
The CC&R's which control the SCCA Core are 45 years old. They are obsolete and in conflict with twentyfirst century life style. The CC&r's as they have been written are contradictory, vague, trivial, and left to interpretation of whomever? They have become a bone of contention among residents, and cause conflicts betweem members and the SCCA. The codes enforcement officer, Donald Miller, has used his position to excessively harass, intimidate and otherwise abuse the senior residents over alleged violations. Donald Miller abuses his power with the complete approval and support of the board.
First, we must stop them from doing this. Second, we must join together in the single purpose of dissolving SCCA. Third, we must dissovle SCCA. It is time seniors stop living in oppression and fear.
Boycott CAI. Boycott CAI.
The CC&R's which control the SCCA Core are 45 years old. They are obsolete and in conflict with twentyfirst century life style. The CC&r's as they have been written are contradictory, vague, trivial, and left to interpretation of whomever? They have become a bone of contention among residents, and cause conflicts betweem members and the SCCA. The codes enforcement officer, Donald Miller, has used his position to excessively harass, intimidate and otherwise abuse the senior residents over alleged violations. Donald Miller abuses his power with the complete approval and support of the board.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Sun City Villas-- Board mismanagement & intimidation to title holders
$7,464.73 -- Where are the receipts? ? ?
The Sun City Villas Board of Directors gave checks from SCV bank accounts to the following SCV Board Members. This is the third time I am asking for them.
Where are the receipts for the monies spent?
Date Amount Check number Payee
01/14/05 $ 178.00 1151 Wren Rose
04/29/05 200.00 11223 Wren Rose
08/15/05 490.50 11281 Wren Rose
Total $ 868.00
01/21/05 241.69 1159 George Martin
05/13/05 $ 62.56 11229 George Martin
05/31/05 92.32 11239 George Martin
02/28/05 298.57 11183 George Martin
08/31/05 200.00 11294 George Martin
09/15/05 93.13 11303 George Martin
11/30/05 1,340.41 11309 George Martin
12/15/05 140.65 11351 George Martin
01/05/06 $ 450.00 11363 George Martin
01/05/06 150.00 George Martin
02/15/06 297.37 11388 George Martin
Total $3,125.01
01/23/06 497.47 11379 Janice Long
04/28/06 696.59 11439 Janice Long
06/30/06 601.92 11476 Janice Long
12/05/06 701.92 11578 Janice Long
Total $2,497.90
06/30/06 276.81 11506 Marguerite Price
08/11/06 547.01 4017 Marguerite Price
Total $823.82
03/31/05 $ 150.00 1160 Ann Kuta
This is not the total as it does not include the checks for 2007. This is a quick over view. We need to know what this money purchased for SCV.
$7,464.73 of SCV member’s money without receipts? ? ? ? Where are the receipts
Wake up titleholders of Sun City Villas. Do not reelect this Board. It's time for you able and willing titleholders to step forward and run for office .
Open your minds and don't let ignorance lead you. We are in serious jeoapardy of soon to be facing law suits, loss of property value, and exhorbitant monthly dues.
It is unbelievable!
July 24 meeting was illegally run with Emma from Slam who prepared the agenda, writes the minutes, seconded the motions, and adjourned the meeting to an "executive session" when she wanted to cut off me off from completeing another titleholder's question. I pointed out that property management companies are not allowed at "executive session" meetings. Of course, one well intentioned but ignorant member tried to say the property managemenr company had the right to attend an "executive session" meeting. Why were they going to hold an executive meeting after the board had already completed its regular board meeting is another suspiscious act. It is also interesting that Emma announced at the meeting "from now on we will be checking the community to see every one is in compliance, we are pro active so it will be a happy place to live." They want the titleholders to comply but they can't even hold a legal meeting.
The titleholders of Sun City Villas (SCV) will be in serious crisis if action isn’t taken this year! Wake up before it is too late!
Response to Marguerite Price’s open letter, June 26, 2007 to the SCV titleholders re: my requests of the board via letter March, 2007 suggesting six items to which Marguerite addressed
SCV Board Has a Fiduciary Duty to the Membership
They have breached their fiduciary duty, they fail to act in the best interest of the titleholder. They take actions that put the association into liability. They refuse to learn from others who know. They should either resign or be removed.
Civil Codes 1350 to 1378 Fiduciary duty, Corp. Code 309, 723
“. . . .So serious is each board director’s duty to those entrusting their loyalty, that, “Most acts by an agent in breach of his fiduciary duties constitute constructive fraud.” And a careless misstatement may [also] constitute constructive fraud even though there is no fraudulent intent..”#1
A Board of Directors of a deed restricted community has the duty to manage the community’s affairs as a business and not as a social club. It must be responsible and accountable to all titleholders of the community—resident or non resident. It has the duty to give information to the members truthfully and accurately without a convolution of the facts. Its leadership must be in the highest and best interest of all titleholders. This board has failed in all of the above duties.
SCV board signed four separate contracts of which they didn’t even realize they signed two with the Emmons Company when they signed a third with S&L. They had to hire an attorney to clean up their mess at the titleholders’ expense. Marguerite Price claimed it is because the second contract was signed by the previous board and they didn’t tell the new board about it. That’s really odd. The previous board and the current board are basically the same people except for Mr. Anas. Don’t they communicate? They signed a contract with a security company and didn’t even know there was a $4000 penalty to cancel it. Ms. Price claims they accepted without question Emmons statistics on the number of rented units in the Villas. When she did her own check,(which was her fiduciary duty in the first place), she discovered she had been misinformed. The meeting notices, the minutes, and how the meetings are run fail to meet the California Corporate Codes specifications. A property management company is a vendor of the association the same as any other vendor—gardener, pool cleaner, handy man, etc. It is the fiduciary duty of the board to properly supervise the management and not the other way around. There is no end to their bungling of SCV association business. The board illegally authorized George Martin to be the SCV architectural committee of one, thus placing the association into more liability.
The board has illegally authorized George Martin to be the architectural committee of one, thus placing the association into more liability.
“Boards that convene committees consisting of one person could incur a risk that the committee’s actions and recommendations may be found ineffective and unenforceable. Such committees may also pose additional liability for the board that allows it. Omission from the statutes of any provision for the creation of a committee consisting of one person implies that there cannot be a committee of one.” California Common Interest Home Owner’s Guide
“. . .A committee for the control of structural and landscaping architecture and design, or an architectural control committee, shall consist of not less that three (3) nor more than five (5) members.” Cal. Code Regs., tit 10 *2792.28 (a)
The Board insists upon having a representative from a property management company at the open board meetings. Because a property management company is only a vendor of the association, it is very, very poor judgment to have a representative from the management company attend the meetings. Yet this board wants all the power and glory to run things without the willingness to be responsible and accountable. Ms. Price writes open letters in an obvious attempt to discredit me for challenging their management. By Ms. Price’s own admission, she and the board were not doing their job and don’t know what they’re doing. Yet, they want to be on the board and run SCV. Is this the kind of management that is in the best interest of the titleholder?
Marguerite Price wrote; “. . . I am bringing this response up at the board meeting and in front of any and all homeowners because Mrs. Daniels has seen fit to put many accusations against myself, George Martin and the 2007 board on her web page on the internet.”#2
Therese Daniels response; “Accusations” are one issue. Facts about their performance and track record are what is published on the web site. As a titleholder since 1998, I have paid over $22,000 in HOA dues. My mother has lived at the Villas since 1982 and has paid over $60,000 in HOA. We both have an investment here as do all titleholders in the Villas. We have every right and moral responsibility to challenge the management of the SCV board of directors. Telephone calling Marguerite or any of the board is impossible for me. They don’t pick up the phone or return calls. They try to pass it to the management company. Any of you who dealt with Emmons when they were around know that is telephone tag and buck passing. I have written very polite letters to Marguerite Price stating “I would welcome a telephone call from her to discuss some of the vital issues to the titleholder.” As usual, she never had the courtesy to call. It is in the best interest of all the titleholders to challenge the decisions and spending of the SCV Board. It is your money! In the spirit of due political process and free speech I am entitled to get necessary information to all titleholders. However, that is no longer possible, thanks to George Martin’s poison pen petition he delivered to me with 54 signatures (one signature was a tenant) asking me to take their names off their mailing list. This left me no choice but use my web site in hopes that those few SCV titleholders who are connected to the internet would see it, print it, and pass it on to the other members.
Marguerite Price wrote; “Mrs. Daniels States that we “ sabotage your rights”, “brainwash the homeowners,” and Mismanage the association that we try to hide things from you. . .”#2
Therese Daniels response; All titleholders have the right to receive information from each other about association management. Why do they need George Martin advising them to sign a petition to stop any information titleholders may need to know. That should be their independent choice. Isn’t that trying to hide information from you? Is George Martin censoring the information of the titleholders? Telling people to not read or get information from another titleholder is blocking their rights to obtain—perhaps—much needed information. It isn’t hard to understand that whatever George said to persuade some members to sign a petition that was not in the best interest of the home owner to sign— had to be brain washing or maybe slander. Other wise why would a titleholder sign anything against his own best interest? Anything George Martin does with the knowledge and approval of the Board makes the Board part of his actions by condoning them. Getting a titleholder to act against his own interest by preventing information to be received from another titleholder is “Sabotage of the titleholder’s rights” by the leadership of SCV. This is another breach by this board of its fiduciary duty.
Marguerite Price wrote: “I don’t know if she realizes that by placing six pages of negative insinuations and guess work on her web page she is doing what she can to sell people on the idea of not buying in the Villas and by so doing, depreciates the value of the villas.” #2
Therese Daniels response; It always amuses me to hear how many people think they are experts in real estate who are not now nor ever have been in the business of real estate. If Marguerite knew anything about property values she and her cohorts would not have amended the CC&R’s with a rental restriction. I am currently an active and licensed Realtor. I practiced real estate in Los Angeles (where the big money is) for over twenty of the past thirty years. During that time I negotiated large and complex transactions, earned millions of dollars for clients, became a certified property manager and managed hundreds of units, donated hours to community service. My calling attention to the bad attitude and management of SCV on my web site will not depreciate the value of SCV since potential buyers don’t even know the web site exists. However the ignorant and malevolent decisions made by the board that affect the titleholder’s pocket books and their property rights which must be disclosed to potential buyers does affect the value of the Villa’s. My web site gives SCV titleholders information about the board and its long track record of bungling titleholders need to know. Remember if they do what they are doing to me for challenging them, they will just as readily do it to you.
Marguerite Price wrote: “1. Reduce the monthly HOA dues to under $200 per month.
Paying HOA dues of $246.24 per month--$73,259.40 goes into the reserve account each year. Paying only $200 per month only $27,059.40 goes into the reserve. . .assessments for any major repairs such as painting all units. . .And God forbid anything should happen to the pool.”#2
Therese Daniels Response: In the last three years, the exteriors have been painted and given a new face lift, the roads have been slurried, the trees trimmed, the pool maintained, etc. How much more does SCV have to spend on major maintenance? The life of all those projects should be good for the next five years! However in about four years the dues went up from $180 to $246. That is about a 36% increase. The cost of living has gone up—but not by 36%. The $200 figure in the letter was a suggestion. It was a “point of departure” to open discussion, which they refused to do. It’s not just about a reserve fund—it’s also about perpetual over maintenance. ( For the nit pickers and hair splitters who will challenge 1%, six vs. ½ a dozen, blue vs. blue green, let me say I know the numbers are not accurate to the penny. They are rounded off and approximated as nearly as I could.) Accounting is not my field but here are a few areas of the Board’s spending that could be added to the reserve fund to reduce the monthly HOA. By the way, whatever happened to the missing $12,000 the Board was dickering with the Emmons company? If we got an independent accountant and checked really close, I bet we could find other ways to build up the fund without more cost to the home owner. The numbers below could reduce the HOA to $212.00 a month. If we looked a little harder, we might even find other ways to save expenses. Numbers below are based upon the year.
Emmons Management (not necessary) 18,516+
Monthly extra charges by Emmons 3,842
Unnecessary Lawyer’s fees--approximately 5,500
Karen Nye + plants titleholders didn’t like 5,000+
Security contract 8,400
Total $39400
39400 – by 12 = $3283 per month -- 97 = $33.85 per titleholder per month
$246.46 – 34.00 = $212.00 per month
27,000 + 40,000 = 67,000 + $12000 missing = $79000 to add to the reserve fund.
#3
Marguerite Price wrote; “2 & 3 Cancel services of new mgmt company and manage Villas without added cost of unnecessary mgmt company. We on the board are all retired and thought by volunteering for this board we would oversee the work of the management company, supervise the work of the gardeners. . .Make final decisions on contracts and handle maintenance problems. None of us feel we have the expertise to handle the finances, nor do we have the knowledge of the various laws pertaining to a retirement community. . .They know the laws, whatever we run into they have been there before and can best advise us how to proceed.”#2
Therese Daniels response; By Marguerite’s own admission, they are retired and don’t know what they are doing. (They should remain retired) Under California civil and corporate laws it is the fiduciary duty to over see all vendors—including the property management company. If they, by her own admission don’t know what they are doing—then how can they professionally over see the property management company? Is this a case of the tail wagging the dog? The cover page of the management contract with S&L, who want to refer to themselves as “SLAM” has a major mistake on it and one minor mistake. The mistake continues throughout the language of the contract. Neither the board nor “SLAM’ realizes it. Yet, the Board states it is better to use a management company. The Board is telling us it is capable of overseeing contracts, after it has already bungled four contracts at the expense to the titleholder-- and fails to see the mistakes in Slam’s contract. How safe are the titleholders of SCV with this kind of flaming ignorance? They want to “over see contracts!” What is wrong with this picture? They want you and me to believe they know what they are doing. We have to accept everything they say as Gospel. They take the posture we are dummies who don’t know. “It ain’t necessarily so.”
1. The villa’s was successfully run for many, many years without the use of a property management company. It can be done so today. There are no new management problems in the 2000’s.
2. If this board claims they can’t do the job without the services of a property management company, then they should resign or the titleholders should remove them from office. Why should the titleholders be made to pay for their incompetence?
3. They did not—I repeat—did not volunteer for the board. They campaigned to be elected. They clearly desired their positions on the board. When they took office, they entered into a fiduciary relationship to the titleholders and breached it ever since.
4. I am very knowledgeable on the subject of deed restricted communities and have repeatedly offered my services verbally and in writing. I am also knowledgeable about contracts. Is there any particular reason they failed to take advantage of my offer?
5. I not only offered my services, I offered them resources written by California’s foremost authorities on deed restricted communities. I sent legal and scholastic articles to them and all the titleholders. I included the bio of one of the best experts who has the distinct honor of one of her books chosen by committee to be included in the permanent law library of the California Supreme Court. They rejected all the information.
6. It takes no special training to manage SCV. Any one knows how to call a roofer, a gardener, or a plumber. Keeping a list of vendors doesn’t require a property management company, it requires a rolodex. The finances can be handled by a simple book keeper and an accountant. A secretarial service can handle the paper grunt work at half the cost and no intimidation to the titleholder.
I have read the contract SCV Board signed with S&L Management Company. SCV Board sold the SCV titleholders down the river. There is nothing in that contract in the best interest of the titleholder. There are several items in the contract which are legally questionable and may put the association in liability. This contract is written purely
the association in liability. This contract is written purely for the benefit of S&L Management and ultimately creates an adversarial position between the titleholders, the board and the company.
The Board bragged they saved about $4700 a year in management fees by hiring SLAM.#3. S&L is only charging a monthly fee of $1150 which will go up 5% each consecutive year. They didn’t tell you about “Exhibit A” (a list of 23 items of everything extra the titleholders will have to pay!) Here are some of the additional charges to SCV that will easily bring SCV’s monthly cost to $1600 to $2000 or more a month. “Exhibit A” attached to the contract has listed items of extra charge-- All of it at the price of the titleholders. Here are just a few:
* Processing returned checks $ 45.00
* Special mailings to membership cost + $75,00
* Word Processing 7.50 per page
* Additional meetings or meeting exceeding 1 hour 75.00 hr.
* Site inspection with landscaper at Board’s request 75.00 hr.
* Scanning and e-mailing invoices for approval 20.00 Per scan
* Collected late fees-50% association & 50% SLAM*
*(this puts the board in partnership with the management company)
#4
Take a look at some of the terms in the contract. SLAM takes no responsibility for any of its actions. What is SCV paying them for? What benefits to the titleholders do they bring so the Board doesn’t have to do so much work—so it thinks.
page 3. 2. Fiscal Services:
2.1 “. . .SLAM shall not be responsible for any discrepancies between the budget and actual expenses, the budget being an estimate to be used only as a guide. The budget is to be adopted by the Board prior to distribution.#4
Page 4 3.3
“. . .SLAM shall also purchase on behalf of the Association such equipment, tools, appliances, materials and supplies for the property maintenance of the Community. All such purchases and contracts shall be in the name and at the expense of the Association.” (What has SCV done with all the equipment George Martin, Woody, and the others have bought in the past three or four years?)#4
Here are some quotes from Villa Appalling written by a legal expert about property management companies:
“After more than a decade of research we are of the opinion that management companies are not worth the money they charge. It is a waste of homeowner funds.”5
“Most management companies are not interested in doing it right as much as they are keeping the projects going and chasing their checks. If they finish the project, you won’t need their services anymore. Management companies usually use a smorgasbord of vendors who provide the largest kickback and who will “play ball” by the company’s terms. . . .”#5
“When the industry (referring to management companies) say that boards are “confused” by the law and its constantly changing nature, it is really because the industry wants them to be. If board’s are confused, then they will have to hire management companies, thus relying on the industry to interpret law the industry creates. These laws were designed by the industry to protect boards, not homeowners.. . .”#5
“If you believe that the company can or will protect your association, before you hire them, ask who pays in case the association is held liable for any of the management company’s acts or omissions. The management’s company answer is predictable: The association pays because all we do is what the board tells us to do.”# 5
Marguerite Price wrote; “4. Repeal the rental restriction amendment. This was explained at a previous board meeting. There are 97 units. At this time 13 are rented, 2 are for rent and 6 are for sale. The only time a problem would arise is if 4 of the six units that are for sale, sold and became rentals then we would to put the rental restriction amendment into effect. Again may I remind you that this was voted on by the homeowners. I wrote Mrs. Daniels a letter and explained this to her.”#2
Therese Daniels response; Marguerite’s argument is misplaced. It fails to justify the existence of a rental restriction amendment. Whether or not the number of units are at the rental restriction cap is moot. The issue is; there is a rental restriction amendment to the CC&R’s which is now a legally required disclosure to all potential buyers. Sellers must disclose to potential buyers there is a rental restriction along with the very excessive, increasing HOA dues, 55+ only restriction, and loads or other restrictions. How many 55+ only buyers do you think there are? How many other 55+ communities that offer many more amenities are competing for their purchases? How attractive do you think all these disclosures are to potential buyers who may still believe in the rights to private property? Bad board decisions are what depreciates the value of the Villas. SCV isn’t exactly the most desired location in California where people are flocking to live. Furthermore, the rental restriction will become grist for any current titleholder who needs to rent his unit over the rental restriction quota. There is also the issue of association liability if the rental restriction interferes with a titleholder’s need to sell or rent his unit and can not because he would be over the quota. There is also an issue of violation of a private property owners’ Constitutional rights. Most shameful of all is a silent but very real dirty little secret. Bigotry is the motivation for this amendment. What a can of worms with HUD that can open. Ms. Price claimed at a meeting last year that 80% of the titleholders voted for it. That is not so. According to the information I have, the actual number of votes for the rental restriction amendment was only 47.
I also challenge the legality of that amendment since I have good reason to believe proper legal procedure was not followed by the board, Emmons Company, or the attorney retained prior to sending that ballot to the titleholders. An investigation needs to be made regarding the methods in which they used to obtain this amendment. I am seriously considering challenging it in the Riverside County Superior Court along with a petition to the Court to remove this board for repeated breach of fiduciary duty.
Marguerite Price wrote; “5. Cancel the Villas membership with SCCA.. . .Since Mrs. Daniels doesn’t live here she has no idea who might benefit from the activities that are offered. Excersize classes, the swim club, lawn bowling, horse shoes, shuffle board, paint and ceramics classes, the travel club, bridge and pinochle. People came to Sun City to retire and have fun things to do and no have to travel too far. Quite a few Villains do take advantage of what entertainment is offered.#2
Therese Daniels response; I live in SC Core about 2 miles away from the Villas. Out of 4762 units in the SCCA Core approximately only 500 people actually use the obsolete facilities.#6 Most S.C. residents don’t want anything to do with SCCA Campus. Truly, the activities of the campus are not what attracted people to Sun City. Marguerite doesn’t seem to have a handle on reality. 4762 people have to pay $246 a year so the minority can use them. Out of 97 titleholders at the Villas approximately only 6 or 7 actually use those facilities. The rest of the 90 or so are penalized so those chosen few can have their fun at the expense of others. Many of the activities at the SCCA Campus could be held at the Clubhouse. Canceling Villas membership with SCCA would save $246 a year now. That means you are currently paying $20.50 a month + $246.24 = $266.44 a month or $3197.28 a year for two associations. SCCA and SCV can raise your dues up to 20% a year without your vote. I heard it said at one of the SCV board meetings I attended last year that the board plans to raise the dues 15% a year. That means between the two associations you could be paying as much as $600+ a month in HOA dues or $7200+ a year within the next three years! Is that O.K. with you?
Marguerite Price wrote; “Mrs. Daniels seems to be upset because some of you do not wish to hear from her.”#2
Therese Daniels’s response: With all due respect, it is not upsetting to me if some people don’t wish to hear from me. Civilized people agree to disagree all the time. They do so agreeably. This board used George Martin to demonize Therese Daniels and denies responsibility in having done so. This is literally a case of “let George do it.” If some people don’t want to hear, let them call me, write me, or say so when they see me. They don’t need be talked into signing some poison pen petition at the behest of George Martin. The question is, would any of them really have even cared if George wasn’t out doing his dirty work? The question is, if titleholders were not brain washed by the whispering campaigns about me, would they have been so willing to sign that petition? Still, another question is, if titleholders really knew their legal rights and how associations are properly run, would they have signed that petition? What is really weird about this is; Marguerite is trying to suggest SCV home owners are totally satisfied with the way the Board is running SCV and love to pay excessive monthly dues that will go up every year, love to have their properties depreciate, glad to see sale’s in the Villas halt, and their rights violated by bad board decisions. The titleholders don’t want anyone presenting information to help them. She is insinuating, all the “resident titleholders” think the board is made up of five infallible card playing saints. How stupid is that? The issues I am dealing with are the very essence of private property ownership and the cost of economic survival in the 21fst. Century. Ms. Price is suggesting home owners don’t want to know about that????
Marguerite Price wrote;“.First I wish she had listened to what I said when I mentioned the percentage of homeowners that signed the petition. I said when I mention the percentage of homeowners that signed the petition. What I said was RESIDENT, RESIDENT HOMEOWNERS.” 2
Therese Daniels response; that I wasn’t listening is a false accusation by Marguerite. I was listening. I take notes. Marguerite Price did not say Resident Homeowner. I repeat. She did not say “resident homeowner” By claiming 71% of the “resident home owners” is a convolution of the truth that gives her the last word-- she thinks?? Even if she had said “resident”, it is moot. Ms. Price makes an issue about my not being resident of the Villas and therefore—though she hasn’t actually come out and said it to my face-- suggests I shouldn’t be permitted the same privileges as the resident titleholders. It was especially apparent when the board thought I might run to be elected last year. The first thing they claimed “must be a resident to serve on the board.” I could have moved into my mother’s residence if it was important enough for me to run. The reality is that recent amendment to the association bylaws is illegal. They can not prevent a non resident from running for or serving on the board merely because he doesn’t live there. If the Board feels that resident titleholders and non resident titleholders don’t have equal rights in this association then, would Marguerite like to discount my monthly HOA dues since I am a non resident? All titleholders-- resident or not-- are entitled to the same rights, courtesy, privileges, information, and opportunities. Is Ms. Price distorting and convoluting the facts again? What the board doesn’t know is I lived at the Villas for almost a year in 1998 after my father passed away and my mother nearly died. That is when this association was very well run without the necessity of a property management company and the dues were only $180. The only thing that has changed since those good old days is the quality of the people on the board. Other wise the villas has the same maintenance, landscaping, and management problems it always had since was built.
The board needs to recognize it isn’t legally correct to continue making an issue over residents vs. non residents. Here’s what is written in the California Common Interest Guide by D. Vanitzian
“Aside from elementary arguments regarding the labeling titleholders as “absentee”, “resident”, or “non resident” and, but for the private nature of the property owned, the treatment of these so-labeled titleholders if disparate from those un-labeled titleholders could raise issues not only of equal protection, but of a “talkings.”#1
“. . .titleholders’ rights vest on purchase. The issue is not one an association’s “intent” to disenfranchise, it is an issue of the association’s creation of a class. Sub-class, or underclass of titleholders who, by virtue of their purchase in a common interest development are each given “equal share” on vesting. . .”# 1
Marguerite Price wrote; quoted from me “. . .some remain silent out of fear of negative repercussions from the Board.”
Therese Daniels response: There are several residents and non resident titleholders who are very unhappy with the management of SCV who had agreed the March letter should be sent. Some asked me not to put their name on it. Out of respect for their request, I excluded their names. A couple of them helped pay for the printing and postage so the entire burden wouldn’t be on me. If these titleholders who asked to not have their names included didn’t fear the board, they would have gladly kept their name on the letter. After seeing what George Martin a past board president, did to me with all five current board signatures on that petition, I now know why these people fear the board. Actions speak louder than words. It was pure malice on George’s part to circulate that petition.
This is a good time bring up the Angelo Longo controversy. Angelo Longo was not only informed about the letter to the Board in March, he was given a copy of it prior to my listing all the names. He very clearly gave me permission to use his name. Otherwise, I would not have included it just as I omitted the others who didn’t want their names. After certain residents who are either on the board or very friendly with the board called him and admonished him for it, he denied he gave me permission. I have had many conversations over the years with Angelo about his own disgust of the board calling them “housewives”, “crazy” and “old ladies”. Was Angelo talking out of both sides of his mouth? ? ?
Marguerite Price wrote; “. . .She feels there is a possibility that Marguerite Price, George Martin, Wren Rose and Jan Long may be dishonest. . .”#2
Therese Daniels response; “Me thinks, Thy Protest too loud?” Let Ms. Price show me where in my letter of June 11, 2007 that I hinted, suggested, accused, or speculated as to the honesty of the above mentioned board members in their use of money they received from SCV. Is this another distortion and convolution of the truth by Marguerite Price? I merely asked for an explanation and receipts of the checks that were written by SCV Association to these people. She still hasn’t produced receipts. She tells me to deal with S&L. Where in my SCV documents does it say I have to deal with a vendor? That is the board’s job—not mine. Ms. Price is chairman or president of the board. It is her fiduciary duty to deal with me. Her explanation of what she did with the money makes me wonder. If SCV is paying S&L to do the grunt paper work, etc., why on earth does the office need all the equipment Marguerite Price recently bought. Has the board no regard for the titleholder’s money? Do they think they can just continue raising the monthly dues and make the titleholders pay, pay, and pay? They have an attitude they are above question and do no wrong. Is it any wonder I challenge the competency of this group.
Summary
This is not about a popularity contest. It is business. SCV titleholders are being harmed by the management of the current Board. We are entitled to have better representation. It is our money, investment and legal rights that are in jeopardy. They have bungled over four contracts we know of, distort reality, fail to follow proper procedures running meetings, taking minutes, sending notices and appointing committees of one. Their only solution to anything is to hire property management companies who also fail to give proper advice and raise the monthly dues. One property management is the same as another. They went to the same school and operate under the same laws.
The information in this response needs to be read by all titleholders in the Villas. However because of George’s petition, I am only sending it to the titleholders whose names were not on the petition. If you agree all SCV titleholders should have better management, then give a copy of this response to your neighbor who didn’t get this statement, call me, or send a letter to the board asking them to terminate the management company, rescind the rental restriction and/or resign. If they had any integrity, the would resign voluntarily. They were elected by the titleholders and they can be removed by us. As much as they want you to believe so. they are not the only five titleholders in the Villas who could serve on the Board. I can not say it strong enough. It this isn’t the first time in SCV history that inept boards were removed from office by the membership. It is you, the title holder who pays the ultimate price for bad management. It’s time we protect our assets and take control of our own destiny.
Sources of Information
1. California Common Interest Development—Homeowners Guide by Donie Vanitzian
2. Open letter written by Marguerite Price and read at the June 2007 Board Meeting
3. Villa Voice, past minutes, copies of SCV contracts, and SCV bank statements
4. Contract between SCV and S&L Management Company
5. Villa Appalling ,Destroying the Myth of Affordable Community Living, Vanitzian & Glassman
6. 2002 Survey by a SCCA committee on actual number of people who use SCCA facilities.
?
A copy of the open letter and Smiling George Martin's statement were promised to my mother since Therese wasn't at the June meeting. Marguerite Price did not even have the courtesy of ringing my mother's door bell and handing the letter to her. My mother found it on the ground at her door step. Since her front gate is always locked, it had to be thrown there. Is this any way for a Board of Directors to do business with titleholders?
wall of Shame
signatures on petition circulated by George Martin
* George Martin Elyce Elyra Ardine Young
* Jeanie Vasquez Hilda Jensen Laura Keyes
* Judy Smith Janice E. Long Marjorie Chase
* Marguerite Price Angelo Longo Janice Bell
* Pat Flecky Judy Appell Toyoko Shafer
* Ann O Dubois Diana Ward Anna May Welsh
* Dollie D. Learn Frieda Prushansky
* Lione S. Ried Vernon Anas Shirley Burger
* Arthur Ortiz Edward M. Gross Kathie Atwell
* Marie Southard Luela Schuelky Barbara M. Neiier
* Jacquelyn Stephener Stephen Eliseudo Katherine Helms
* Wren Lane Marvan Hothan Liz Busch
* Dorothy Gray Marion Woods Eula Comyns
* Roger Hirth Edward Kuta Rosemary Allinson
* Gwen Long Lillian Diefenndorf Vaela Johnson
* Mary Kuenzie Helen Smith Alora Lee Bobzien
* Carolyn Smith Nancy Conz Robert Roner
Help stop child abuse--support the Museum of Innocence--go to www.museumofinnocence.org
The Sun City Villas Board of Directors gave checks from SCV bank accounts to the following SCV Board Members. This is the third time I am asking for them.
Where are the receipts for the monies spent?
Date Amount Check number Payee
01/14/05 $ 178.00 1151 Wren Rose
04/29/05 200.00 11223 Wren Rose
08/15/05 490.50 11281 Wren Rose
Total $ 868.00
01/21/05 241.69 1159 George Martin
05/13/05 $ 62.56 11229 George Martin
05/31/05 92.32 11239 George Martin
02/28/05 298.57 11183 George Martin
08/31/05 200.00 11294 George Martin
09/15/05 93.13 11303 George Martin
11/30/05 1,340.41 11309 George Martin
12/15/05 140.65 11351 George Martin
01/05/06 $ 450.00 11363 George Martin
01/05/06 150.00 George Martin
02/15/06 297.37 11388 George Martin
Total $3,125.01
01/23/06 497.47 11379 Janice Long
04/28/06 696.59 11439 Janice Long
06/30/06 601.92 11476 Janice Long
12/05/06 701.92 11578 Janice Long
Total $2,497.90
06/30/06 276.81 11506 Marguerite Price
08/11/06 547.01 4017 Marguerite Price
Total $823.82
03/31/05 $ 150.00 1160 Ann Kuta
This is not the total as it does not include the checks for 2007. This is a quick over view. We need to know what this money purchased for SCV.
$7,464.73 of SCV member’s money without receipts? ? ? ? Where are the receipts
Wake up titleholders of Sun City Villas. Do not reelect this Board. It's time for you able and willing titleholders to step forward and run for office .
Open your minds and don't let ignorance lead you. We are in serious jeoapardy of soon to be facing law suits, loss of property value, and exhorbitant monthly dues.
It is unbelievable!
July 24 meeting was illegally run with Emma from Slam who prepared the agenda, writes the minutes, seconded the motions, and adjourned the meeting to an "executive session" when she wanted to cut off me off from completeing another titleholder's question. I pointed out that property management companies are not allowed at "executive session" meetings. Of course, one well intentioned but ignorant member tried to say the property managemenr company had the right to attend an "executive session" meeting. Why were they going to hold an executive meeting after the board had already completed its regular board meeting is another suspiscious act. It is also interesting that Emma announced at the meeting "from now on we will be checking the community to see every one is in compliance, we are pro active so it will be a happy place to live." They want the titleholders to comply but they can't even hold a legal meeting.
The titleholders of Sun City Villas (SCV) will be in serious crisis if action isn’t taken this year! Wake up before it is too late!
Response to Marguerite Price’s open letter, June 26, 2007 to the SCV titleholders re: my requests of the board via letter March, 2007 suggesting six items to which Marguerite addressed
SCV Board Has a Fiduciary Duty to the Membership
They have breached their fiduciary duty, they fail to act in the best interest of the titleholder. They take actions that put the association into liability. They refuse to learn from others who know. They should either resign or be removed.
Civil Codes 1350 to 1378 Fiduciary duty, Corp. Code 309, 723
“. . . .So serious is each board director’s duty to those entrusting their loyalty, that, “Most acts by an agent in breach of his fiduciary duties constitute constructive fraud.” And a careless misstatement may [also] constitute constructive fraud even though there is no fraudulent intent..”#1
A Board of Directors of a deed restricted community has the duty to manage the community’s affairs as a business and not as a social club. It must be responsible and accountable to all titleholders of the community—resident or non resident. It has the duty to give information to the members truthfully and accurately without a convolution of the facts. Its leadership must be in the highest and best interest of all titleholders. This board has failed in all of the above duties.
SCV board signed four separate contracts of which they didn’t even realize they signed two with the Emmons Company when they signed a third with S&L. They had to hire an attorney to clean up their mess at the titleholders’ expense. Marguerite Price claimed it is because the second contract was signed by the previous board and they didn’t tell the new board about it. That’s really odd. The previous board and the current board are basically the same people except for Mr. Anas. Don’t they communicate? They signed a contract with a security company and didn’t even know there was a $4000 penalty to cancel it. Ms. Price claims they accepted without question Emmons statistics on the number of rented units in the Villas. When she did her own check,(which was her fiduciary duty in the first place), she discovered she had been misinformed. The meeting notices, the minutes, and how the meetings are run fail to meet the California Corporate Codes specifications. A property management company is a vendor of the association the same as any other vendor—gardener, pool cleaner, handy man, etc. It is the fiduciary duty of the board to properly supervise the management and not the other way around. There is no end to their bungling of SCV association business. The board illegally authorized George Martin to be the SCV architectural committee of one, thus placing the association into more liability.
The board has illegally authorized George Martin to be the architectural committee of one, thus placing the association into more liability.
“Boards that convene committees consisting of one person could incur a risk that the committee’s actions and recommendations may be found ineffective and unenforceable. Such committees may also pose additional liability for the board that allows it. Omission from the statutes of any provision for the creation of a committee consisting of one person implies that there cannot be a committee of one.” California Common Interest Home Owner’s Guide
“. . .A committee for the control of structural and landscaping architecture and design, or an architectural control committee, shall consist of not less that three (3) nor more than five (5) members.” Cal. Code Regs., tit 10 *2792.28 (a)
The Board insists upon having a representative from a property management company at the open board meetings. Because a property management company is only a vendor of the association, it is very, very poor judgment to have a representative from the management company attend the meetings. Yet this board wants all the power and glory to run things without the willingness to be responsible and accountable. Ms. Price writes open letters in an obvious attempt to discredit me for challenging their management. By Ms. Price’s own admission, she and the board were not doing their job and don’t know what they’re doing. Yet, they want to be on the board and run SCV. Is this the kind of management that is in the best interest of the titleholder?
Marguerite Price wrote; “. . . I am bringing this response up at the board meeting and in front of any and all homeowners because Mrs. Daniels has seen fit to put many accusations against myself, George Martin and the 2007 board on her web page on the internet.”#2
Therese Daniels response; “Accusations” are one issue. Facts about their performance and track record are what is published on the web site. As a titleholder since 1998, I have paid over $22,000 in HOA dues. My mother has lived at the Villas since 1982 and has paid over $60,000 in HOA. We both have an investment here as do all titleholders in the Villas. We have every right and moral responsibility to challenge the management of the SCV board of directors. Telephone calling Marguerite or any of the board is impossible for me. They don’t pick up the phone or return calls. They try to pass it to the management company. Any of you who dealt with Emmons when they were around know that is telephone tag and buck passing. I have written very polite letters to Marguerite Price stating “I would welcome a telephone call from her to discuss some of the vital issues to the titleholder.” As usual, she never had the courtesy to call. It is in the best interest of all the titleholders to challenge the decisions and spending of the SCV Board. It is your money! In the spirit of due political process and free speech I am entitled to get necessary information to all titleholders. However, that is no longer possible, thanks to George Martin’s poison pen petition he delivered to me with 54 signatures (one signature was a tenant) asking me to take their names off their mailing list. This left me no choice but use my web site in hopes that those few SCV titleholders who are connected to the internet would see it, print it, and pass it on to the other members.
Marguerite Price wrote; “Mrs. Daniels States that we “ sabotage your rights”, “brainwash the homeowners,” and Mismanage the association that we try to hide things from you. . .”#2
Therese Daniels response; All titleholders have the right to receive information from each other about association management. Why do they need George Martin advising them to sign a petition to stop any information titleholders may need to know. That should be their independent choice. Isn’t that trying to hide information from you? Is George Martin censoring the information of the titleholders? Telling people to not read or get information from another titleholder is blocking their rights to obtain—perhaps—much needed information. It isn’t hard to understand that whatever George said to persuade some members to sign a petition that was not in the best interest of the home owner to sign— had to be brain washing or maybe slander. Other wise why would a titleholder sign anything against his own best interest? Anything George Martin does with the knowledge and approval of the Board makes the Board part of his actions by condoning them. Getting a titleholder to act against his own interest by preventing information to be received from another titleholder is “Sabotage of the titleholder’s rights” by the leadership of SCV. This is another breach by this board of its fiduciary duty.
Marguerite Price wrote: “I don’t know if she realizes that by placing six pages of negative insinuations and guess work on her web page she is doing what she can to sell people on the idea of not buying in the Villas and by so doing, depreciates the value of the villas.” #2
Therese Daniels response; It always amuses me to hear how many people think they are experts in real estate who are not now nor ever have been in the business of real estate. If Marguerite knew anything about property values she and her cohorts would not have amended the CC&R’s with a rental restriction. I am currently an active and licensed Realtor. I practiced real estate in Los Angeles (where the big money is) for over twenty of the past thirty years. During that time I negotiated large and complex transactions, earned millions of dollars for clients, became a certified property manager and managed hundreds of units, donated hours to community service. My calling attention to the bad attitude and management of SCV on my web site will not depreciate the value of SCV since potential buyers don’t even know the web site exists. However the ignorant and malevolent decisions made by the board that affect the titleholder’s pocket books and their property rights which must be disclosed to potential buyers does affect the value of the Villa’s. My web site gives SCV titleholders information about the board and its long track record of bungling titleholders need to know. Remember if they do what they are doing to me for challenging them, they will just as readily do it to you.
Marguerite Price wrote: “1. Reduce the monthly HOA dues to under $200 per month.
Paying HOA dues of $246.24 per month--$73,259.40 goes into the reserve account each year. Paying only $200 per month only $27,059.40 goes into the reserve. . .assessments for any major repairs such as painting all units. . .And God forbid anything should happen to the pool.”#2
Therese Daniels Response: In the last three years, the exteriors have been painted and given a new face lift, the roads have been slurried, the trees trimmed, the pool maintained, etc. How much more does SCV have to spend on major maintenance? The life of all those projects should be good for the next five years! However in about four years the dues went up from $180 to $246. That is about a 36% increase. The cost of living has gone up—but not by 36%. The $200 figure in the letter was a suggestion. It was a “point of departure” to open discussion, which they refused to do. It’s not just about a reserve fund—it’s also about perpetual over maintenance. ( For the nit pickers and hair splitters who will challenge 1%, six vs. ½ a dozen, blue vs. blue green, let me say I know the numbers are not accurate to the penny. They are rounded off and approximated as nearly as I could.) Accounting is not my field but here are a few areas of the Board’s spending that could be added to the reserve fund to reduce the monthly HOA. By the way, whatever happened to the missing $12,000 the Board was dickering with the Emmons company? If we got an independent accountant and checked really close, I bet we could find other ways to build up the fund without more cost to the home owner. The numbers below could reduce the HOA to $212.00 a month. If we looked a little harder, we might even find other ways to save expenses. Numbers below are based upon the year.
Emmons Management (not necessary) 18,516+
Monthly extra charges by Emmons 3,842
Unnecessary Lawyer’s fees--approximately 5,500
Karen Nye + plants titleholders didn’t like 5,000+
Security contract 8,400
Total $39400
39400 – by 12 = $3283 per month -- 97 = $33.85 per titleholder per month
$246.46 – 34.00 = $212.00 per month
27,000 + 40,000 = 67,000 + $12000 missing = $79000 to add to the reserve fund.
#3
Marguerite Price wrote; “2 & 3 Cancel services of new mgmt company and manage Villas without added cost of unnecessary mgmt company. We on the board are all retired and thought by volunteering for this board we would oversee the work of the management company, supervise the work of the gardeners. . .Make final decisions on contracts and handle maintenance problems. None of us feel we have the expertise to handle the finances, nor do we have the knowledge of the various laws pertaining to a retirement community. . .They know the laws, whatever we run into they have been there before and can best advise us how to proceed.”#2
Therese Daniels response; By Marguerite’s own admission, they are retired and don’t know what they are doing. (They should remain retired) Under California civil and corporate laws it is the fiduciary duty to over see all vendors—including the property management company. If they, by her own admission don’t know what they are doing—then how can they professionally over see the property management company? Is this a case of the tail wagging the dog? The cover page of the management contract with S&L, who want to refer to themselves as “SLAM” has a major mistake on it and one minor mistake. The mistake continues throughout the language of the contract. Neither the board nor “SLAM’ realizes it. Yet, the Board states it is better to use a management company. The Board is telling us it is capable of overseeing contracts, after it has already bungled four contracts at the expense to the titleholder-- and fails to see the mistakes in Slam’s contract. How safe are the titleholders of SCV with this kind of flaming ignorance? They want to “over see contracts!” What is wrong with this picture? They want you and me to believe they know what they are doing. We have to accept everything they say as Gospel. They take the posture we are dummies who don’t know. “It ain’t necessarily so.”
1. The villa’s was successfully run for many, many years without the use of a property management company. It can be done so today. There are no new management problems in the 2000’s.
2. If this board claims they can’t do the job without the services of a property management company, then they should resign or the titleholders should remove them from office. Why should the titleholders be made to pay for their incompetence?
3. They did not—I repeat—did not volunteer for the board. They campaigned to be elected. They clearly desired their positions on the board. When they took office, they entered into a fiduciary relationship to the titleholders and breached it ever since.
4. I am very knowledgeable on the subject of deed restricted communities and have repeatedly offered my services verbally and in writing. I am also knowledgeable about contracts. Is there any particular reason they failed to take advantage of my offer?
5. I not only offered my services, I offered them resources written by California’s foremost authorities on deed restricted communities. I sent legal and scholastic articles to them and all the titleholders. I included the bio of one of the best experts who has the distinct honor of one of her books chosen by committee to be included in the permanent law library of the California Supreme Court. They rejected all the information.
6. It takes no special training to manage SCV. Any one knows how to call a roofer, a gardener, or a plumber. Keeping a list of vendors doesn’t require a property management company, it requires a rolodex. The finances can be handled by a simple book keeper and an accountant. A secretarial service can handle the paper grunt work at half the cost and no intimidation to the titleholder.
I have read the contract SCV Board signed with S&L Management Company. SCV Board sold the SCV titleholders down the river. There is nothing in that contract in the best interest of the titleholder. There are several items in the contract which are legally questionable and may put the association in liability. This contract is written purely
the association in liability. This contract is written purely for the benefit of S&L Management and ultimately creates an adversarial position between the titleholders, the board and the company.
The Board bragged they saved about $4700 a year in management fees by hiring SLAM.#3. S&L is only charging a monthly fee of $1150 which will go up 5% each consecutive year. They didn’t tell you about “Exhibit A” (a list of 23 items of everything extra the titleholders will have to pay!) Here are some of the additional charges to SCV that will easily bring SCV’s monthly cost to $1600 to $2000 or more a month. “Exhibit A” attached to the contract has listed items of extra charge-- All of it at the price of the titleholders. Here are just a few:
* Processing returned checks $ 45.00
* Special mailings to membership cost + $75,00
* Word Processing 7.50 per page
* Additional meetings or meeting exceeding 1 hour 75.00 hr.
* Site inspection with landscaper at Board’s request 75.00 hr.
* Scanning and e-mailing invoices for approval 20.00 Per scan
* Collected late fees-50% association & 50% SLAM*
*(this puts the board in partnership with the management company)
#4
Take a look at some of the terms in the contract. SLAM takes no responsibility for any of its actions. What is SCV paying them for? What benefits to the titleholders do they bring so the Board doesn’t have to do so much work—so it thinks.
page 3. 2. Fiscal Services:
2.1 “. . .SLAM shall not be responsible for any discrepancies between the budget and actual expenses, the budget being an estimate to be used only as a guide. The budget is to be adopted by the Board prior to distribution.#4
Page 4 3.3
“. . .SLAM shall also purchase on behalf of the Association such equipment, tools, appliances, materials and supplies for the property maintenance of the Community. All such purchases and contracts shall be in the name and at the expense of the Association.” (What has SCV done with all the equipment George Martin, Woody, and the others have bought in the past three or four years?)#4
Here are some quotes from Villa Appalling written by a legal expert about property management companies:
“After more than a decade of research we are of the opinion that management companies are not worth the money they charge. It is a waste of homeowner funds.”5
“Most management companies are not interested in doing it right as much as they are keeping the projects going and chasing their checks. If they finish the project, you won’t need their services anymore. Management companies usually use a smorgasbord of vendors who provide the largest kickback and who will “play ball” by the company’s terms. . . .”#5
“When the industry (referring to management companies) say that boards are “confused” by the law and its constantly changing nature, it is really because the industry wants them to be. If board’s are confused, then they will have to hire management companies, thus relying on the industry to interpret law the industry creates. These laws were designed by the industry to protect boards, not homeowners.. . .”#5
“If you believe that the company can or will protect your association, before you hire them, ask who pays in case the association is held liable for any of the management company’s acts or omissions. The management’s company answer is predictable: The association pays because all we do is what the board tells us to do.”# 5
Marguerite Price wrote; “4. Repeal the rental restriction amendment. This was explained at a previous board meeting. There are 97 units. At this time 13 are rented, 2 are for rent and 6 are for sale. The only time a problem would arise is if 4 of the six units that are for sale, sold and became rentals then we would to put the rental restriction amendment into effect. Again may I remind you that this was voted on by the homeowners. I wrote Mrs. Daniels a letter and explained this to her.”#2
Therese Daniels response; Marguerite’s argument is misplaced. It fails to justify the existence of a rental restriction amendment. Whether or not the number of units are at the rental restriction cap is moot. The issue is; there is a rental restriction amendment to the CC&R’s which is now a legally required disclosure to all potential buyers. Sellers must disclose to potential buyers there is a rental restriction along with the very excessive, increasing HOA dues, 55+ only restriction, and loads or other restrictions. How many 55+ only buyers do you think there are? How many other 55+ communities that offer many more amenities are competing for their purchases? How attractive do you think all these disclosures are to potential buyers who may still believe in the rights to private property? Bad board decisions are what depreciates the value of the Villas. SCV isn’t exactly the most desired location in California where people are flocking to live. Furthermore, the rental restriction will become grist for any current titleholder who needs to rent his unit over the rental restriction quota. There is also the issue of association liability if the rental restriction interferes with a titleholder’s need to sell or rent his unit and can not because he would be over the quota. There is also an issue of violation of a private property owners’ Constitutional rights. Most shameful of all is a silent but very real dirty little secret. Bigotry is the motivation for this amendment. What a can of worms with HUD that can open. Ms. Price claimed at a meeting last year that 80% of the titleholders voted for it. That is not so. According to the information I have, the actual number of votes for the rental restriction amendment was only 47.
I also challenge the legality of that amendment since I have good reason to believe proper legal procedure was not followed by the board, Emmons Company, or the attorney retained prior to sending that ballot to the titleholders. An investigation needs to be made regarding the methods in which they used to obtain this amendment. I am seriously considering challenging it in the Riverside County Superior Court along with a petition to the Court to remove this board for repeated breach of fiduciary duty.
Marguerite Price wrote; “5. Cancel the Villas membership with SCCA.. . .Since Mrs. Daniels doesn’t live here she has no idea who might benefit from the activities that are offered. Excersize classes, the swim club, lawn bowling, horse shoes, shuffle board, paint and ceramics classes, the travel club, bridge and pinochle. People came to Sun City to retire and have fun things to do and no have to travel too far. Quite a few Villains do take advantage of what entertainment is offered.#2
Therese Daniels response; I live in SC Core about 2 miles away from the Villas. Out of 4762 units in the SCCA Core approximately only 500 people actually use the obsolete facilities.#6 Most S.C. residents don’t want anything to do with SCCA Campus. Truly, the activities of the campus are not what attracted people to Sun City. Marguerite doesn’t seem to have a handle on reality. 4762 people have to pay $246 a year so the minority can use them. Out of 97 titleholders at the Villas approximately only 6 or 7 actually use those facilities. The rest of the 90 or so are penalized so those chosen few can have their fun at the expense of others. Many of the activities at the SCCA Campus could be held at the Clubhouse. Canceling Villas membership with SCCA would save $246 a year now. That means you are currently paying $20.50 a month + $246.24 = $266.44 a month or $3197.28 a year for two associations. SCCA and SCV can raise your dues up to 20% a year without your vote. I heard it said at one of the SCV board meetings I attended last year that the board plans to raise the dues 15% a year. That means between the two associations you could be paying as much as $600+ a month in HOA dues or $7200+ a year within the next three years! Is that O.K. with you?
Marguerite Price wrote; “Mrs. Daniels seems to be upset because some of you do not wish to hear from her.”#2
Therese Daniels’s response: With all due respect, it is not upsetting to me if some people don’t wish to hear from me. Civilized people agree to disagree all the time. They do so agreeably. This board used George Martin to demonize Therese Daniels and denies responsibility in having done so. This is literally a case of “let George do it.” If some people don’t want to hear, let them call me, write me, or say so when they see me. They don’t need be talked into signing some poison pen petition at the behest of George Martin. The question is, would any of them really have even cared if George wasn’t out doing his dirty work? The question is, if titleholders were not brain washed by the whispering campaigns about me, would they have been so willing to sign that petition? Still, another question is, if titleholders really knew their legal rights and how associations are properly run, would they have signed that petition? What is really weird about this is; Marguerite is trying to suggest SCV home owners are totally satisfied with the way the Board is running SCV and love to pay excessive monthly dues that will go up every year, love to have their properties depreciate, glad to see sale’s in the Villas halt, and their rights violated by bad board decisions. The titleholders don’t want anyone presenting information to help them. She is insinuating, all the “resident titleholders” think the board is made up of five infallible card playing saints. How stupid is that? The issues I am dealing with are the very essence of private property ownership and the cost of economic survival in the 21fst. Century. Ms. Price is suggesting home owners don’t want to know about that????
Marguerite Price wrote;“.First I wish she had listened to what I said when I mentioned the percentage of homeowners that signed the petition. I said when I mention the percentage of homeowners that signed the petition. What I said was RESIDENT, RESIDENT HOMEOWNERS.” 2
Therese Daniels response; that I wasn’t listening is a false accusation by Marguerite. I was listening. I take notes. Marguerite Price did not say Resident Homeowner. I repeat. She did not say “resident homeowner” By claiming 71% of the “resident home owners” is a convolution of the truth that gives her the last word-- she thinks?? Even if she had said “resident”, it is moot. Ms. Price makes an issue about my not being resident of the Villas and therefore—though she hasn’t actually come out and said it to my face-- suggests I shouldn’t be permitted the same privileges as the resident titleholders. It was especially apparent when the board thought I might run to be elected last year. The first thing they claimed “must be a resident to serve on the board.” I could have moved into my mother’s residence if it was important enough for me to run. The reality is that recent amendment to the association bylaws is illegal. They can not prevent a non resident from running for or serving on the board merely because he doesn’t live there. If the Board feels that resident titleholders and non resident titleholders don’t have equal rights in this association then, would Marguerite like to discount my monthly HOA dues since I am a non resident? All titleholders-- resident or not-- are entitled to the same rights, courtesy, privileges, information, and opportunities. Is Ms. Price distorting and convoluting the facts again? What the board doesn’t know is I lived at the Villas for almost a year in 1998 after my father passed away and my mother nearly died. That is when this association was very well run without the necessity of a property management company and the dues were only $180. The only thing that has changed since those good old days is the quality of the people on the board. Other wise the villas has the same maintenance, landscaping, and management problems it always had since was built.
The board needs to recognize it isn’t legally correct to continue making an issue over residents vs. non residents. Here’s what is written in the California Common Interest Guide by D. Vanitzian
“Aside from elementary arguments regarding the labeling titleholders as “absentee”, “resident”, or “non resident” and, but for the private nature of the property owned, the treatment of these so-labeled titleholders if disparate from those un-labeled titleholders could raise issues not only of equal protection, but of a “talkings.”#1
“. . .titleholders’ rights vest on purchase. The issue is not one an association’s “intent” to disenfranchise, it is an issue of the association’s creation of a class. Sub-class, or underclass of titleholders who, by virtue of their purchase in a common interest development are each given “equal share” on vesting. . .”# 1
Marguerite Price wrote; quoted from me “. . .some remain silent out of fear of negative repercussions from the Board.”
Therese Daniels response: There are several residents and non resident titleholders who are very unhappy with the management of SCV who had agreed the March letter should be sent. Some asked me not to put their name on it. Out of respect for their request, I excluded their names. A couple of them helped pay for the printing and postage so the entire burden wouldn’t be on me. If these titleholders who asked to not have their names included didn’t fear the board, they would have gladly kept their name on the letter. After seeing what George Martin a past board president, did to me with all five current board signatures on that petition, I now know why these people fear the board. Actions speak louder than words. It was pure malice on George’s part to circulate that petition.
This is a good time bring up the Angelo Longo controversy. Angelo Longo was not only informed about the letter to the Board in March, he was given a copy of it prior to my listing all the names. He very clearly gave me permission to use his name. Otherwise, I would not have included it just as I omitted the others who didn’t want their names. After certain residents who are either on the board or very friendly with the board called him and admonished him for it, he denied he gave me permission. I have had many conversations over the years with Angelo about his own disgust of the board calling them “housewives”, “crazy” and “old ladies”. Was Angelo talking out of both sides of his mouth? ? ?
Marguerite Price wrote; “. . .She feels there is a possibility that Marguerite Price, George Martin, Wren Rose and Jan Long may be dishonest. . .”#2
Therese Daniels response; “Me thinks, Thy Protest too loud?” Let Ms. Price show me where in my letter of June 11, 2007 that I hinted, suggested, accused, or speculated as to the honesty of the above mentioned board members in their use of money they received from SCV. Is this another distortion and convolution of the truth by Marguerite Price? I merely asked for an explanation and receipts of the checks that were written by SCV Association to these people. She still hasn’t produced receipts. She tells me to deal with S&L. Where in my SCV documents does it say I have to deal with a vendor? That is the board’s job—not mine. Ms. Price is chairman or president of the board. It is her fiduciary duty to deal with me. Her explanation of what she did with the money makes me wonder. If SCV is paying S&L to do the grunt paper work, etc., why on earth does the office need all the equipment Marguerite Price recently bought. Has the board no regard for the titleholder’s money? Do they think they can just continue raising the monthly dues and make the titleholders pay, pay, and pay? They have an attitude they are above question and do no wrong. Is it any wonder I challenge the competency of this group.
Summary
This is not about a popularity contest. It is business. SCV titleholders are being harmed by the management of the current Board. We are entitled to have better representation. It is our money, investment and legal rights that are in jeopardy. They have bungled over four contracts we know of, distort reality, fail to follow proper procedures running meetings, taking minutes, sending notices and appointing committees of one. Their only solution to anything is to hire property management companies who also fail to give proper advice and raise the monthly dues. One property management is the same as another. They went to the same school and operate under the same laws.
The information in this response needs to be read by all titleholders in the Villas. However because of George’s petition, I am only sending it to the titleholders whose names were not on the petition. If you agree all SCV titleholders should have better management, then give a copy of this response to your neighbor who didn’t get this statement, call me, or send a letter to the board asking them to terminate the management company, rescind the rental restriction and/or resign. If they had any integrity, the would resign voluntarily. They were elected by the titleholders and they can be removed by us. As much as they want you to believe so. they are not the only five titleholders in the Villas who could serve on the Board. I can not say it strong enough. It this isn’t the first time in SCV history that inept boards were removed from office by the membership. It is you, the title holder who pays the ultimate price for bad management. It’s time we protect our assets and take control of our own destiny.
Sources of Information
1. California Common Interest Development—Homeowners Guide by Donie Vanitzian
2. Open letter written by Marguerite Price and read at the June 2007 Board Meeting
3. Villa Voice, past minutes, copies of SCV contracts, and SCV bank statements
4. Contract between SCV and S&L Management Company
5. Villa Appalling ,Destroying the Myth of Affordable Community Living, Vanitzian & Glassman
6. 2002 Survey by a SCCA committee on actual number of people who use SCCA facilities.
?
A copy of the open letter and Smiling George Martin's statement were promised to my mother since Therese wasn't at the June meeting. Marguerite Price did not even have the courtesy of ringing my mother's door bell and handing the letter to her. My mother found it on the ground at her door step. Since her front gate is always locked, it had to be thrown there. Is this any way for a Board of Directors to do business with titleholders?
wall of Shame
signatures on petition circulated by George Martin
* George Martin Elyce Elyra Ardine Young
* Jeanie Vasquez Hilda Jensen Laura Keyes
* Judy Smith Janice E. Long Marjorie Chase
* Marguerite Price Angelo Longo Janice Bell
* Pat Flecky Judy Appell Toyoko Shafer
* Ann O Dubois Diana Ward Anna May Welsh
* Dollie D. Learn Frieda Prushansky
* Lione S. Ried Vernon Anas Shirley Burger
* Arthur Ortiz Edward M. Gross Kathie Atwell
* Marie Southard Luela Schuelky Barbara M. Neiier
* Jacquelyn Stephener Stephen Eliseudo Katherine Helms
* Wren Lane Marvan Hothan Liz Busch
* Dorothy Gray Marion Woods Eula Comyns
* Roger Hirth Edward Kuta Rosemary Allinson
* Gwen Long Lillian Diefenndorf Vaela Johnson
* Mary Kuenzie Helen Smith Alora Lee Bobzien
* Carolyn Smith Nancy Conz Robert Roner
Help stop child abuse--support the Museum of Innocence--go to www.museumofinnocence.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)