Recently, Tom & Betty Normand wrote a letter to homeowners in which they asked me to provide some specifics about the reasons why I believe this Board should to be recalled. First, this recall is not about me. I don’t serve on any committees, nor am I a member of the Board. Therefore, I really have no agenda or personality conflicts with anyone. Nor am I alone in support of this recall. I have lived here for 16 years. Some supporters of the recall have lived here longer. We all did not spontaneously get up on the wrong side of the bed and decide that after 35 years it was time for the “first recall” ever. The stark, naked truth is the Board brought this on themselves.
I understand that fewer than 50% of the homeowners live here full time. My letters have really been addressed to the remainder who do not. Those that live here can see for themselves and are more able to attend Board meetings to witness the Board’s behavior. Those that don’t live here have limited (and perhaps biased) sources of information about their second homes, investment, assessments, or the dues they pay every month.
How do most of you, who are not full time residents, have any real information about what happens here? I would think most of you would take for granted that we have a Board that acts lawfully, that utilizes best practices and operates in the best interests of the complex as a whole.
Your hopes and assumptions that the Board acts properly and lawfully would be understandable. In the opinion of too many who live here, including me, this Board does not and they have lost control. So let’s get started with some facts.
Lavishing resources on themselves.
It has been our basic premise that this Board has allowed a select few homeowners to use our precious labor and resources for their own benefit. Two of these homeowners have been represented by the Board as being on the Landscape Committee. To support this factually, I have posted on the blog photographs of some of the “special units”. For those who don’t have computer access please contact me for hard copies.
.jpg)
One of the photographs you will see is the landscaping in front of the unit owned by Tom & Betty Normand, who wrote the letter of support, only they forgot to tell you that one of them is on the Landscape Committee (Chair at one point) and the other was the Board President when the Board embarked on their agenda to renovate our landscape. He also currently serves as Chair of the Finance Committee.
Other photographs show removal of a Coral tree along the stream and another the recent reconstruction of our pond that flows in front of their unit. This reconstruction was performed without formal Board approval or without submission to our Architectural Committee. Further, the pond which is one of our center pieces now has a “patchwork, disconnected appearance” and bushes and plants are being damaged or allowed to die in order to allow more changes to be made. These changes were made without any consideration being given to the loss of privacy to neighboring units or noise abatement both cited in the governing CC&Rs as considerations by the Board for landscape changes. Creating or maintaining a view for a homeowner is NOT.
Redo of Pond Photos
Most importantly, however, is that this use of our resources deprived us of having our employees performing the rigorous routine maintenance schedule that an aging complex needs not to fall apart (think restroom in grocery store where the maintenance log is ignored). And this is just one example of many.
Neglected Maintenance
Neglected Maintenance
Photos Showing Neglected Maintenance
Another photograph is of a “specially trimmed” tree that gave the “special homeowner” their requested “right to a view.” The problem with this is neither our governing by-laws nor CC&Rs, nor the State of California, gives any homeowner a “right to a view”. This right was granted by a member of the Landscape Committee to another Landscape Committee member. (For those who dispute this, please see the Board minutes or ask me for a copy.) The more serious problem with these “special tree trimmings” is that for the first time we ran out of money before all the trees could be trimmed. Not to mention it raises serious questions about who is in control.
Unlawful delegation of authority.
As shown above, we have a Landscape Committee that has, in part, become the Board. According to “best practices” and California law, certain functions can only be performed by a Board. The reasons are obvious. Boards are elected by the members and are accountable to the members. Privileged few and committees are not elected by anyone. They have no accountability to anyone. Inevitably, as is the case here, the process disintegrates, and our complex begins to degrade. As an example, some of our Board members were not even aware that the pond was being reconstructed! Imagine that.
Deceptive practices.
1. We need to dramatically change the landscape due to government mandates. Until my first letter informing you just what those mandates really are, the Board had no problem misleading us into an irreversible course of change. For example, artificial turf that has absolutely no appreciation for our recent rains. Talk about a waste of money. When the Board tried to have this put on the bluff, supposedly at the request of 30 homeowners (but anonymous homeowners known only to the Board) they belatedly found out that the Coastal Commission wouldn’t allow this. So now we have one area of artificial turf that doesn’t go with anything.
2. We have a five-year phased landscaping plan (but you don’t get to see it and we keep having to pay advisors to work on it and “in the future” the Board is going get homeowners input). This one is pretty self evident, as we are now on our third phase and our third or fourth landscape architect, or the like, I forget.
3. We have to drastically change the landscaping due to controlling water costs. The water costs cited by the supporters’ letter were for the entire complex. The pools, the individual units, and not just the landscaping. In fact, we really don’t know what our future water costs will be since the formula is always changing. For example, the most recent formula bases present water costs on a prior year. Use too little one year, and pay too much the next!
By the way, before you were finally informed that landscaping changes were not due to government mandates, our plants were water starved to make it look like change was necessary. Now we are having a recall, our water usage has skyrocketed to make everything look great. Oh, and even I can do the math to figure out that the 24% water reduction in 2009 posted outside our complex was due to just not watering per the level 2 mandate. That’s why these signs are everywhere in Solana Beach.
4. We doubled our earthquake insurance for free. No we didn’t. We paid $5,000 more for insurance we didn’t need. That is why suddenly we are all getting letters about purchasing individual stop gap insurance. We were led to a false sense of security.
5. We don’t have the right to learn about litigation, and the Board can’t discuss it. Any litigation is a “significant development” where the homeowners should be informed. It is a public record. The whole world, except for you, of course, is entitled to know it. The Board can’t discuss it because the Board’s intransigence, in my opinion, caused it. (Remember I am a litigation attorney.). Oh, and by the way is a required disclosure in the audited financial statements.
6. We have avoided the shocking assessments of some of the other complexes but our turn is coming. We may have avoided the six-figure assessments of other bluff complexes by not building to the edge of the cliff, not by Board action. Our developers had providence not to make that mistake. Also, because of our award winning landscape design we will most likely not have to undergo the major exterior improvements that have resulted in hefty assessments. Our complex was designed with structural simplicity. Again we owe gratitude to the wisdom of our developers. Further, our size has given us an advantage over the other bluff complexes because we spread our maintenance costs over 188 units. Until recently we have taken advantage of our size by focusing on "preservation and maintenance" of our "park like setting". (Remember why you bought here). However, if we don't stop making uninformed and unwise changes, our size will work against us. In fact, our size will put us in serious financial risk. Imagine the costs of correcting a poor choice for a complex our size. Especially by an unelected committee that has taken over the functions of the Board! We nearly made that mistake with the electrical panels.
Unfortunately, I could go on and on with reasons to support the recall of the Board and cite more examples, but I’d like to invite others to respond and share their thoughts. As my previous letter indicated, a blog (http://seascapesur-election.blogspot.com/) has been set up to try and facilitate more information sharing, especially for non-resident owners. For those of you who keep asking the Board and management what are water cost have been in the past and get no response, I’ve enclosed a historical cost chart. Information comes directly from our audited financial statements. Sure doesn’t build a case for a six figure renovation of our landscape.
Regards,
Martin Schmidt
(619) 300–1526 (After 6:00 pm PST)
No comments:
Post a Comment