Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| 06/ 5/25 21:01:39 | [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4 ] |
| Subject: Keep your eye on the ball, Brian | |
|
Author: Butch Huber |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: Thu, Sep 10 2009, 7:31:57 In reply to: Brian Snyder 's message, "What would you like to se added to the common area?" on Thu, Sep 10 2009, 5:30:35 Brian, we need to add more amenities to the common area, however, they don't need to necessarily be a replacement for the Basketball Courts, they need to be in "addition to" the basketball courts. Think if it this way, Brian, one day you may not be a board member of Willoughby Station. One day you could be voted out or you could elect to quit. The same is true for the rest that currently sit on the board. Now, imagine if you will that I run for office and I go around the neighborhood and I find a group of people who are like-minded and who share my philosophy and beliefs and get them to run. Suppose we were to stick our finger in the air to see which way the wind was blowing in Willoughby Station (Playing to the masses) and we presented ourselves to the neighborhood as if we were going to do the bidding or vote on matters the way the majority would want us to vote in order to get elected. Then, once elected, we hatch our plan to do what it is we really want to do. Now imagine we were acting under color of office to make changes that "we" wanted, and imagine we were using homeowner's association money to do it against the wishes of the homeowner's of the neighborhood. We would be spending your money to do what we want. Brian, would you like that? I applaud your efforts and appreciate the time you put in to helping in the neighborhood, however, you have a responsibility to us to look at this situation for what it is and do the right thing, not the expedient thing. Removing the basketball courts is a surrender to the undesired behavior of a small group of unruly children and young adults. The unintended consequence/benefit that is coming from this issue is that I/we are discovering just how vulnerable we are to an out-of-control board of directors. I have heard horror stories of when Will Sellers was running the homeowner's association. From what I heard, if a homeowner challenged him and the board of directors they were thrown out, and at times, police were used to escort them out of the meeting. I turned my head and looked the other way then, I had bigger fish to fry and "more important" things to do. Now, I am faced with a board of directors that thinks it is within their purview to shutdown an amenity that I am otherwise entitled to enjoy without so much as asking my opinion or asking for my permission and getting even a majority vote on the issue. The ball to keep your eye on here isn't the basketball court, that is the minor issue, it is the undefined powers, and the perceived unlimited power, of the board of directors of this community. The really needs to be a more specifically, much more limiting, set of covenants developed that specifically tells the board what its powers are and which ensures that the board is fully aware that it has no powers except those specifically given to it in the covenants. You need this to happen for you and your family's well-being and I need this to happen for my family's well-being. The basketball nets and baskets need to be put back up, they have become symbolic to me at this point. There is a reason the covenants included Article VII of the covenants, even if Lori is right about their applicability. A reasonable person would conclude that the builder knew that the first mortgagee would want to protect their interests from a builder or subsequent authority reducing the value of the property in which they have given a loan. Am I any less important than the mortgagee? Do I not need protection from the board as well? The board of directors of this neighborhood needs to address this issue of lack of security at the common area with the City of Mt. Juliet. The case could be made that, because the city required the common area in Willoughby Station in the beginning the city has an ongoing interest in the continuation of the Common Area and therefore has responsibility to provide enhanced security when necessary to ensure the safe conduct of activities in that area. It is not fitting, nor ethical, for the City to not take the issues going on in the common area seriously and work with the home owner's in this neighborhood to restore law and order in the common area. They compelled the creation of the common area, they have a shared responsibility to secure it as well. When a city approves a PUD, and it demands a common area with amenities or without, the city is putting off onto the neighborhood a responsibility to provide open space and/or amenities to the people who move into the area rather than taxing them directly and provide the open space and/or amenities themselves. The city is also putting off on the homeowners a responsibility to sell-police their neighborhood by having a management association act as watchdog over the neighborhood. That is why, if someone isn't mowing their yard to your satisfaction, or their dog is pooping on your yard, or people are using your yard like a thoroughfare, or your neighbor has an old clunker in his driveway, or someone's dog is driving you nuts, or any other little thing, or big thing, you call the association management office to deal with the problem rather than call city hall. The city reduces its workload and need for additional police and other services because we have our own guard-dog with an attorney to attack you and bring you back into submission. We, those of us in Willoughby Station, essentially pay $300 in additional taxes, although it is called a Willoughby Station Home Owner's Association Fee or some such thing, compared to what homeowner's who don't live in such a neighborhood pay. The developer was required to provide us with a common area and he included certain amenities to that area in return for approval of the preliminary and/or final master development plan. Who do you think paid for the common area and the amenities? The developer? No. The City? No. You and I paid for them through the increased value and price of our homes when we bought them. The developer passed that cost to us. We pay $300 per year in maintenance costs to continue the amenities that are available and to possibly add more amenities. It is exactly for this reason that a lot of people don't want others who live outside this neighborhood to use our facilities, we paid for them, we pay for them, and we don't want them to use it without our permission. My philosophy, although I realize it is not as common as I would like, is that government shouldn't have been involved in the first place! If people really want to have common areas, pools, walking trails, tennis courts, basketball courts, etc in their neighborhoods, if it is really all that important, the builder has to install them anyway. The government muddies the water when it forces builders to provide amenities. If people really want to have such amenities they can form groups and pay for them themselves. In fact, there is nothing wrong with getting together with all of the people of Mt. Juilet, forming an association, and going out and purchasing a piece of property together and build whatever legally could be built there for your or our enjoyment, why does the government have to be involved? If we do things without government compulsion and without government approval (except normal building codes, fire codes, and such) then the government has not compelling interest in the decisions made by our board, however, when the government "has" compelled such an association and such facilities the government must have had a compelling interest in order to become involved in the first place and it has a compelling interest, and a continuing responsibility, with regard to the facilities. We, the homeowners of Willoughby Station, are lifting the burden from the shoulders of the City for our presence in this city by paying our dues and self-governing. We are saving this city perhaps between $200 and $500 grand a year in costs by self-governing and self-regulating. I believe the city owes it to us to work with us and find an amicable solution to this problem of unruly and undisciplined youth invading our facilities. Just as they provide enhanced security at Providence Marketplace, they have a responsibility to provide enhanced security in Willoughby Station, especially in the common areas. I am not saying they have more of a responsibility to provide security for us than they do in Providence, but they have a responsibility to provide more enhanced security than they do in areas where the city has forced an association. Think about it, in this little neighborhood we have approximately one-twelfth or one-thirteenth of the homes and perhaps 10% of the population of all of Mt. Juliet, add in Hickory Hills, Mt. Vernon estates, and Brook Stone and this area has a very high percentage of the number of homes and amount of people in Mt. Juliet. We deserve enhancement of police protection and security, especially in our common areas, if for no other reasons we pay a lot of the taxes in this City. However, I also believe we have a right to be treated with respect and with an acknowledgement that the city created this situation in the first place by shifting its burden to the homeowner's association. If the city is not going to provide the level of support it should to homeowner's associations to secure the neighborhood and protect both the cities and the homeowner's interests the city should stop approving neighborhoods, or at least should stop approving PUD's. I believe it is incumbent upon the board of directors to seek out enhanced help and assistance from the City Government in this matter. The excuse that the common areas are private property and no a matter of city concern is not accurate and cannot be accepted. They created this mess, they need to help clean it up. I just wanted to buy a home to live in, I didn't want to end up in law enforcement (except as it pertains to the responsibilities we all have as citizens). You cannot waiver and you cannot falter, you have to fix the problem, not simply remove the thing that exposes the problem. This isn't dealing with your child, where you put away the toy that is getting the child all excited and undisciplined, this is a community that is losing one of its amenities because a few unruly children won't abide by our rules and honor our rights. Can't you see the differences in all of this? Keep your eye on the ball, Brian. Force the government to accept its culpability here and demand that they work with the community and be responsible for what they have created. The city has at its disposal a vast array of options that we as private citizens do not have. Listen to what they say, put up the signs they say to put up, help them to help us, and then get out of the way. If they don't do their duties at that point we need to sue the city as a homeowner's association. We have rights that come with our responsibilities, Brian. Brian, I am not picking on you, I am simply using your name and addressing you because you are the only board member I know of who actually uses this site or communicates on this site. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| Subject | Author | Date |
| Looking for different opinions... | Brian Snyder | Thu, Sep 10 2009, 8:31:24 |
| Brush off | Concerned Parent | Thu, Sep 10 2009, 9:57:37 |
|
||
|
Forum timezone: GMT-6 VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB: Before posting please read our privacy policy. VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems. Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved. |