Date Posted:14:57:56 01/14/11 Fri Author:Lamar Brown Author Host/IP: 68-28-169-232.pools.spcsdns.net / 68.28.169.232 Subject: Up Date
You Need To Hear Both Sides!
When a 3-page article concerning the Downey’s Lawsuit appeared in another local paper, the Sargent’s News received several phone calls from supporters requesting that we print an article to clear up the many misconceptions presented in that article. So many people who have stood by us and supported us through this ordeal convinced us that since an election for new board members is coming up in just 6 weeks, we need speak up. So, here goes –
1. They state that the temporary injunction prevented any action by selected board members. NOT TRUE, they were ordered to conduct normal business activities, just no special purchases or sales of assets. And NO ‘selected’ board members were picked out. Every board member was included.
2. The board seems convinced that we did not have 25 signatures of members in good standing on the request for a special meeting. NOT TRUE. While there were some signatures there that were not in good standing, we still had over 25 good ones.
3. OK, so the laptop was stolen. But why would some teenage boys take minutes of board meetings? And, yes, it is interesting to note that no other electronic equipment was taken.
4. Yes, documents were received at our attorney’s office dating back to 1974. Records from the 70’s & 80’s were not needed. All records were returned in the same ‘disarray’ in which they were received. We asked for financial records. Only about 10 invoices were received. Over a year’s worth of bank statements were not there. To this date, the board has still not submitted all the bills, bank statements and check stubs.
5. It is NOT a fact that two of the plaintiffs placed liens on properties while we were on the board. It was discussed in meetings, but was decided against.
6. The board claims that the membership voted to change board term limits from 2 years to 4 years. According to the ballots turned over to us in their paperwork, it was turned down by the voters!
7. They claim that when plaintiff Mary Ann Dittert & family went to the office to see the financial records, they were “arbitrary & threatening” . We have all this on video. You would be welcome to see it – there are NO threats, not even a raised voice.
8. We did NOT demand a special account be set up for lot owners to pay maintenance fees. We suggested it and the board’s attorney agreed, no problem. Why have no maintenance fees been deposited? Maybe property owners are worried about putting their money into their account?
9. We did NOT single out “one board member . . . with pictures plastered all over town, identifying her as the cause of all the alleged misdeeds”. We DID single her out as the cause ofthe red tags issued by the county. This was the result of her complaining to the county about the travel trailers. This was not a Downey’s thing – it affected the entire Sargent area. Any of you remember Capt. Clean-Up? He caused some of the same problems – and suffered the same consequence!
10. “Friends of the plaintiffs . . .circulating a petition to close down the association completely”. !!!??? Haven’t seen one of those. If you have read the by-laws, you know that a petition won’t do it and it’s not likely that 90% of the members would vote to pull any section out anyway. This was not our intention. Where do they come up with this garbage?
11. And, speaking of garbage, the article stated that “if the subdivision is shut down, lending institutions will be hesitant, if not outright refuse, to loan money for mortgages in this area because of no deed restrictions”. BS! If that’s the case, how does anyone else get a mortgage that’s not in a HOA? Look at Canal Drive – they have no deed restrictions. There are many homes around Sargent, Texas & the entire U.S. not in an association who have mortgages.
12. Did you know that the association was paying for liability insurance to cover OUR liability for accidents and injuries near our property? Me neither. The article claims that if there is no association, the liability insurance will no longer be available, leaving lot owners personally liable for accidents and injuries near their property. Sounds like ‘they’ are really pushing the scare tactics to win your vote!
13. They claim that the subdivision is only trying to clean up abandoned trailers and recover outstanding maintenance fees. That would be great if that’s what they were trying to do. The article neglects to inform you that they:
a. Hit camper trailer owners with ‘fines’ if they had more than one camper per lot. (Nothing about that in the deed restrictions.)
b. Hit new property owners with up to $1,000 in back maintenance fees, after the owner purchased their property at the tax auction.
c. Demanded that Sargent Garbage Service, Sargent Tire Service & Sargent’s News close down, as we were in violation of the deed restrictions. Funny, two of these businesses were in existence back in 1996 when the owner was elected to this same board. No one has ever complained about these businesses. Why now? Could a rival newspaper have anything to do with that?
d. Have neglected to send out invoices for maintenance dues to everyone for several years. How do they expect to collect dues if they won’t try to work things out with their neighbors?
IT’S TIME TO ELECT A NEW BOARD – AND YOU’LL HAVE YOUR CHANCE. ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WILL BE ALLOWED TO VOTE AND/OR RUN FOR THE BOARD, REGARDLESS OF YOUR DUES STANDING –
