Response to Sue De Carlo
Submitted for publication in the January Key Notes:
In the December Issue of the Key Notes, an article appeared entitled “Open Letter To Those Who Opposed The Revised CC&Rs” asking why so many Owners voted “NO”.
This letter is our response.
Submitted for publication in the January Key Notes:
In the December Issue of the Key Notes, an article appeared entitled “Open Letter To Those Who Opposed The Revised CC&Rs” asking why so many Owners voted “NO”.
This letter is our response.
|
|
|
December 10, 1998
First of all, the new CC&Rs were not revised, it was a completely new document, re-written from scratch by an attorney representing the Board and Management’s interests. This is our chief complaint. Changes to our existing CC&Rs, if any, must be made via amendment only. This must be a step by step process with maximum emphasis on preserving property Owner’s rights. If the United States government wished to make changes to the Constitution, It would be done via amendments, not a complete re-write of the Constitution. Furthermore, we believe that no changes are necessary to our current CC&Rs. We’ve heard the argument that the current CC&Rs do not reflect current law and therefore must be changed. This is simply not correct. The CC&Rs do not need to mirror the law. The Law is the Law. The CC&Rs are our own rules and policies and were never intended to be Law. Where there is any difference in the Law, the Law supercedes our Bylaws anyway; so the point is moot. Finally, we cannot, and will not, pass a completely new, written-from-scratch document as our new CC&Rs and Bylaws; Particularly when committees that act as a check and balance are abolished, property Owner’s rights are greatly diminished, non Owners are allowed on the Board, and opposing views are not published in the Key Notes and election mailers. WE POSE THIS TO THE BOARD: Tell us, on an item by item basis, what you don’t like about the current CC&Rs. |
|