Response
from the Board in Blue
Homeowner
Post re: Special Assessment
From: Harry Zinser [mailto:zinsers@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 1:19 PM
To: Valin Miranker
Cc: Harry Zinser; Anita Oliveri
Subject: LSV
Valin: Congratulations for having
attained that great positon of being on the LSV board. Are you having fun yet?
My wife and I own Unit 85. I try to keep in touch with going ons through Anita.
Please feel free to contact the Board directly as that may
shorten the timeline for a response, after all we are both your Board and also
owners like you.
The latest round of voting has me a
bit puzzled and I am not sure I understand the math (really the thinking) that
ended up with a one time assessment for a 300 K loan. The decision of the majority of HOA
members (80% of those that voted, including the “no” votes) was to address the
problems listed as both “do all” and the “must do” in combination, the decision
of the Board was to only take on and do the “must do”. The value of the “must
do” including a reasonable contingency was approximately $300,000.00 and so the
Board voted to use that value under the Special Assessment.
Also, why does that assessment have
to paid by May? or whatever date was. Did anyone on board consider that some
owners may not have retired with a spike in their last year's pay or a golden
handshake? I find that decision rather presumptuous. The Board felt that giving the HOA members approximately 60 days
was a reasonable time line. The Board is well aware of the burden that this
places on each HOA member, we are also HOA members and also have to pay our
portion.
Also, that decision totally discounts
the votes of 19 people who voted no.
Not true, the “no”
votes were counted in the tally but were not a majority When ever you change the conditions you are voting on, then
shouldn't that be put to a new vote? It seems that some board members are in a
haste to get certain conditions fixed We as a group have
been communicating on this matter for over a year, does not seem hasty but
instead a prudent period. The problem is: Just because there
was no majority vote on the first set of conditions, I don't think is right for
the board to have discounted all votes that were not for option A or B, and
then, as a board, decide what to do.
Disagree, the Board is entrusted to undertake to act responsibly
in the duty of protecting our common interests, which is what has occurred.
With a majority vote (again over 79%) to proceed, the Board is doing just that.
I AM WILLING TO GO ALONG WITH WHAT
EVER THE HOME OWNERS DECIDE AS A MAJORITY. BUT IT IS WRONG FOR THE BOARD TO SAY
WE DO NOT HAVE A MAJORITY VOTE, THEREFORE WE WILL DO THIS. NO. THEN THE NEW SET
OF CONDITIONS NEEDS TO BE PUT OUT AND A NEW VOTE TAKEN. The lack of a majority was on the options to pay for the mandate
that the HOA provided to the Board, i.e. undertake the needed and necessary
repairs. Without a majority vote on a financing option, the Board had no choice
but to levy the Special Assessment under the CCR’s.
Any light you can shed, or feel free
about discussing, would be greatly appreciated.
Harry Zinser: Unit 85
Please feel free to contact any
Board member should you have any further questions.
