Posted by Geoffrey Brooks – Somersett Homeowner
Do we have to keep on voting, surely it has all been said… The vote to change a few of the CC&R’s should be deemed “NOT PASSED”. Why wait till the 15th?
Originally, we were told that the CC&R’s were rushed into the BOD vote, to save on postage. Subsequently, we have had two “very expensive” mailings.
The Board should appoint community home-owners to a committee to re-vamp (in English) all the CCR&R’s, to allow the HOA to respond to the future (e.g. severe droughts), to ensure that Somersett’s charter allows the community to own and operate golf courses, build additional amenities as the community deems necessary.
Please note that the above expansion of a now narrow charter only serves the developers now operating in this community (1500 houses to go). We will be paying for future amenities that traditionally the developer provides included in the price of the property.
From past posts:
(Posted November 18th)
“Let’s Do It Right – With regard to the CC&R vote:
1) given the ballot instruction mix-up,
2) at the Aspen Lodge the BOD President said a voter “quorum” constituted 50% of homeowners only to admit later it was really 20%, **
3) at the TCTC meeting the BOD President said they just “missed” the fact that the Board authority to enter into property leases had no limits attached *
4) other changes would be required in the future to address other CC&R provisions wherein “Developer” references would need deleting, and
5) no pressing need was identified to push the CC&R vote at the same time as the BOD elections.
It appears that the BOD did not properly vet the proposed changes before putting it out for a vote. Therefore, is it not reasonable to suggest that the BOD cancel the CC&R vote while they get their act together and correct their mistakes, as unintentional as they may have been?
Otherwise they have left us no alternative but to vote no.”
* (Posted November 14th)
“the proposed CC&Rs does give the right to the Board of Directors to lease property(s) in a given year in an amount up to $500,000 without homeowner approval, or to enter into a lease of unlimited value also without homeowner approval. Therefore, the Board under the new CC&Rs could easily enter into an agreement to lease land or the Sunsett Grill from the Country Club putting Somersett in the restaurant business.”
When questioned on this oversight, the BOD admitted that they had blown it – there should have been a $ limit
** (Posted November 14th)
“At TCTC meeting the BOD President acknowledged that the 20% quorum requirement was indeed the correct value, which means that given the approximate 2480 unit owners, the minimum number of voting members for the measure to be valid would be 496 and to pass would require a minimum of 249 affirmative votes. However, the BOD President expressed the opinion that for significantly high dollar measures, the probability that a high number of homeowners would abstain from voting was very low.
An attendee commented as to why the BOD did not explain and quantify the quorum issue in their letter to sent out with the ballots, or within the amendment language itself. Rather than creating confusion and leaving it up to homeowners to figure out what a majority vote of a quorum meant.”
(Posted November 20th)
“Under the quorum rules, the SGCC and the Developers have about 600 votes. As we have a combination of two realtors and 3 SGCC members, I feel that the voting may be stacked against the best interests for all in the community, especially as many believe that contributing to a private club should be an option and not mandatory.”
(Posted February 2nd)
“The point I was trying to make, is that the developers, if they vote their 400 lots, can actually command the theoretical minimum number of yes votes to pass something, so they can actually control our community expenditures. As they have successfully sold golf course lots for a much greater premium than any re-seller has (so far), it is obvious where their interests lie.”
Collated by Geoffrey Brooks