First Proposed Amendment - What the HOA & Attorney conveniently left out of their cover letters...

FIRST PROPOSED AMENDMENT 

Received the cover letter from the management company and the explanation letter from Ryan Harris yesterday. After reading both I could not help but wonder how convenient it was that both left out the real reason behind "...the need for the amendment." If you attend tonight's board meeting, or the August 15th meeting, be sure to ask.

The management company naturally cannot get facts straight when it comes to the history of the HOA. In their cover letter they state that the so-called "maintenance...practice" of the HOA has been "since 1996." The development requirements of the area were not even complete for the front end homes (nearest College) until after 1998; as such, the Declarant did not turn over the HOA it initially started (and did absolutely nothing with) until 1999. This "maintenance...practice" did not begin until the 2000s, and homeowners have been questioning, debating and arguing with the HOA Boards of Directors, past to present, ever since.

Regarding Mr. Harris' letter, he conveniently omits certain facts that would otherwise clearly explain the matter. One example is the following statement:

"The governing documents list "street trees" as "common improvements" maintained by the Association."

That's only a half-truth; the full unadulterated truth is what I have argued over and over again since the 2000s, so this is nothing new...the 'governing documents' (CC&Rs Section 7.1) clearly states "; and street trees on each Lot."

Mr. Harris then states, "The current and past boards have interpreted street trees as those along Foothills Drive in the oversized planter strips..."

How does a reasonable person interpret the clear and concise terms "on each" to mean "those along"; and "Lot" to mean "Foothills Drive"? smh

The HOA are beggars of their own demise; if they would only follow the governing documents and statutory laws governing HOAs exactly as they are written, there would be no need to question the HOA, no need for debate, no need to argue with attorneys, and certainly no need for a lawsuit.

So question them, hard, at both meetings. Hold them accountable for their collective and consistent failures resulting in their current predicament.