Tonight the Live Oak Board voted unanimously to disband the Gate Enhancement Committee so the Guard House issue is dead at this time.
However, after the first of January, when a new board has been installed for the Live Oak HOA, gate improvements will again be investigated. However, they made clear that any new gate committee will not have the same leadership.
They may also require that anyone who wants a Guard House must present a petition signed by 51% of the owners behind the gates before proceeding with this issue.
So that's where it stands right now.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
LVLO HOA Board Meeting
The next La Verne Live Oak Homeowners meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008 (not Oct 29th). It will be at the La Verne Community Center at 7 pm.
Please attend if you can.
Please attend if you can.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Gates Enhancement Committee Meeting on 10/9/08
The first meeting of the committee on gate enhancement was somewhat of a surprise to all who attended. Most of the meeting was run by the president of the La Verne Live Oak HOA. Which was not correct, but when he, it appeared in exasperation, asked the chairman if he was ever going to do something the meeting heated up.
We were informed that the only information to go to the board of the HOA was to be from him and that all of the committee members had no say in whatever was recommended.
We did feel as if we were in the presence of a dictator.
When a member of the committee voiced concern and opposition, the chairman became very loud and informed all of us that if we did not agree with him we were off of the committee and that that member was kicked off right then and there because the board of the HOA had given him the power by making him Chairman.
It is apparent that if we ever expect anything to be done about the gates that the majority of the homeowners that live within the gates may want, it cannot be done with that person as chairman of this important committee. Most of the people concerned strongly feel that a survey should be conducted as soon as possible to ask the important question of whether or not there should be a guard shack (house or whatever) and guard, get that out of picture and then and only then can we get on with the problem of maintenance, or rebuilding or whatever of the gates.
This should be a decision of all the homeowners within the gated community. I might add that right now with the financial picture the way it is there are many who cannot afford any expense added to their lives and that those who want to add more to the gates to add a guard house/guard, beautify or anything else for their own ego massaging is really self-centered and thoughtless.
I would hope all that feel the way we do would try to appear at the next La Verne / Live Oak HOA Meeting (10/29/08 at the La Verne Community Center) and voice your concern.
We were informed that the only information to go to the board of the HOA was to be from him and that all of the committee members had no say in whatever was recommended.
We did feel as if we were in the presence of a dictator.
When a member of the committee voiced concern and opposition, the chairman became very loud and informed all of us that if we did not agree with him we were off of the committee and that that member was kicked off right then and there because the board of the HOA had given him the power by making him Chairman.
It is apparent that if we ever expect anything to be done about the gates that the majority of the homeowners that live within the gates may want, it cannot be done with that person as chairman of this important committee. Most of the people concerned strongly feel that a survey should be conducted as soon as possible to ask the important question of whether or not there should be a guard shack (house or whatever) and guard, get that out of picture and then and only then can we get on with the problem of maintenance, or rebuilding or whatever of the gates.
This should be a decision of all the homeowners within the gated community. I might add that right now with the financial picture the way it is there are many who cannot afford any expense added to their lives and that those who want to add more to the gates to add a guard house/guard, beautify or anything else for their own ego massaging is really self-centered and thoughtless.
I would hope all that feel the way we do would try to appear at the next La Verne / Live Oak HOA Meeting (10/29/08 at the La Verne Community Center) and voice your concern.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
GOV SIGNS AB 2846: SMALL CLAIMS COURT AND DISPUTED SUMS
SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2008OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
The Governor signed AB 2846 today, legislation affecting all homeowners who want to dispute assessments or other charges levied by an association board. Assembly Member Mike Feuer [D-Los Angeles], who authored the bill, announced the signing Sunday night.
The new law allows homeowners to pay a disputed charge under protest and to set the matter before a small claims court. The disputed sum cannot exceed the jurisdictional limit of small claims, which is now $7500. The law takes effect January 2009.
This right of homeowners to "pay under protest" was deleted from the Civil Code two years ago. The state statute originally applied only to assessments. AB 2846 now allows homeowners to use small claims court to dispute fines and other charges, including collection costs.
The California Alliance for Retired Americans (CARA) was the sponsor of the measure and partnered with the Center for California Homeowner Association Law to find a lawmaker to carry the bill. Assembly Member Feuer agreed to author the legislation, because there are more than 12,000 homeowner associations in Los Angeles County, where his district is located.
He also wanted to carry the bill because of his long-standing commitment to Access to Justice issues. He sawAB 2846 as Access to Justice legislation, because it establishes small claims court as a neutral place where homeowners can get a fair hearing on disputed sums.
Currently, homeowners can only dispute the charges before the association board (or one of its vendors), i.e. the entity that levied the charges. Association boards and vendors -- property managers, law firms, and debt collectors -- are not neutral third parties in such disputes.
Feuer has just been appointed Chair of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, a post he will take up next session.
AB 2846 was also supported by the California Judicial Council, the policymaking body for the state courts, and by the Self-Help Legal Access Center of the Ventura Superior Court.
CCHAL urges homeowners throughout the state to thank Mike Feuer for carrying AB 2846. Please email your thanks to Feuer's staff member Scott Ogus at scott.ogus@asm.ca.gov.
You can read the entire text of the bill at www.leginfo.ca.gov.
If you have questions about the measure, email us at www.calhomelaw.org
Marjorie Murray, President
Center for California Homeowner Association LawA 501c3 nonprofit
The Governor signed AB 2846 today, legislation affecting all homeowners who want to dispute assessments or other charges levied by an association board. Assembly Member Mike Feuer [D-Los Angeles], who authored the bill, announced the signing Sunday night.
The new law allows homeowners to pay a disputed charge under protest and to set the matter before a small claims court. The disputed sum cannot exceed the jurisdictional limit of small claims, which is now $7500. The law takes effect January 2009.
This right of homeowners to "pay under protest" was deleted from the Civil Code two years ago. The state statute originally applied only to assessments. AB 2846 now allows homeowners to use small claims court to dispute fines and other charges, including collection costs.
The California Alliance for Retired Americans (CARA) was the sponsor of the measure and partnered with the Center for California Homeowner Association Law to find a lawmaker to carry the bill. Assembly Member Feuer agreed to author the legislation, because there are more than 12,000 homeowner associations in Los Angeles County, where his district is located.
He also wanted to carry the bill because of his long-standing commitment to Access to Justice issues. He sawAB 2846 as Access to Justice legislation, because it establishes small claims court as a neutral place where homeowners can get a fair hearing on disputed sums.
Currently, homeowners can only dispute the charges before the association board (or one of its vendors), i.e. the entity that levied the charges. Association boards and vendors -- property managers, law firms, and debt collectors -- are not neutral third parties in such disputes.
Feuer has just been appointed Chair of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, a post he will take up next session.
AB 2846 was also supported by the California Judicial Council, the policymaking body for the state courts, and by the Self-Help Legal Access Center of the Ventura Superior Court.
CCHAL urges homeowners throughout the state to thank Mike Feuer for carrying AB 2846. Please email your thanks to Feuer's staff member Scott Ogus at scott.ogus@asm.ca.gov.
You can read the entire text of the bill at www.leginfo.ca.gov.
If you have questions about the measure, email us at www.calhomelaw.org
Marjorie Murray, President
Center for California Homeowner Association LawA 501c3 nonprofit
Saturday, September 27, 2008
More - Board Meeting Comments
The meeting of the La Verne/Liveoak HOA on Wednesday the 24th was a very subdued, matter of fact meeting. But one thing stood out in my mind, the fact that it would appear the powers that be, ( the President and the absent Chairman of the gate committee) appear to be dragging the proposition of the gate, survey, guard, etc.out to wear us down, as witness the attendance of homeowners at said meeting.
I am sure I am not the only one who noticed that the meeting of the committee on the gate enhancement was having a hard time meeting because he, the president and he the chairman were so busy that it was hard for them to make time in their busy schedules to find the right time and place for such a meeting. Now if memory serves there are 25 or so people signed on to this committee but apparently only those two count. Now the president himself said we are all equal in this endeavor. Apparently some are more equal than others.
From what I have heard in the past this is what they intend and they have no intention of letting this get out of their control. They have an agenda and have had it for the last 2 to 3 years, it has never been off the table and from day one and they will continue until they get what they want.
Now many of us feel that if they do not set up a meeting and get the survey in the works within the next month, then we the members of this HOA will be getting together and developing our own survey format, and ask the board to use it.
I am sure I am not the only one who noticed that the meeting of the committee on the gate enhancement was having a hard time meeting because he, the president and he the chairman were so busy that it was hard for them to make time in their busy schedules to find the right time and place for such a meeting. Now if memory serves there are 25 or so people signed on to this committee but apparently only those two count. Now the president himself said we are all equal in this endeavor. Apparently some are more equal than others.
From what I have heard in the past this is what they intend and they have no intention of letting this get out of their control. They have an agenda and have had it for the last 2 to 3 years, it has never been off the table and from day one and they will continue until they get what they want.
Now many of us feel that if they do not set up a meeting and get the survey in the works within the next month, then we the members of this HOA will be getting together and developing our own survey format, and ask the board to use it.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Board Meeting
Many thanks to all of you who attended Wednesday night's Live Oak Board meeting (Oriole was particularly well represented).
Even though the agenda stated that a schedule for the Gate Committee would be presented Brian (President of the Live Oak Board) indicated that he had not had a chance to speak to Massro (Chairman of the Committee) about setting up committee meeting date(s) because of "school". He stated that when a meeting is scheduled the committee members will be notified and that it will probably follow a regular meeting of the Board.
The Jameson's
Even though the agenda stated that a schedule for the Gate Committee would be presented Brian (President of the Live Oak Board) indicated that he had not had a chance to speak to Massro (Chairman of the Committee) about setting up committee meeting date(s) because of "school". He stated that when a meeting is scheduled the committee members will be notified and that it will probably follow a regular meeting of the Board.
The Jameson's
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
LVLO Association Board Meeting - September
The association board meeting was held this evening. The gates committee report was postponed until next meeting. The gates committee did not meet since last board meeting.
Board President, Scherer, and Gates Committee head, Massro, are attempting to plan a meeting during the upcoming month, which will include 25 to 30 committee members. They are trying to locate a room where the meeting can be held. They were unable to coordinate their busy schedules and locate a place since the last meeting.
Gates Committee members will be contacted by Haven Management and advised of the committee meeting date and location. The committee will meet and discuss options for maintaining and enhancing the gates. The committee will then present its ideas to the board and the board will vote to proceed or not to proceed.
A preliminary poll of all homeowners will be taken to find out which direction the committee should move on the gates. If enhancements are being considered that are over the existing gate reserves, an official vote of the homeowners will have to take place for more funding.
The Gates Committee is open to all homeowners; if you are interested in serving, contact Nadine at Haven Management, nadine@haven-management.net , and you will be notified of the upcoming meeting.
Board President, Scherer, and Gates Committee head, Massro, are attempting to plan a meeting during the upcoming month, which will include 25 to 30 committee members. They are trying to locate a room where the meeting can be held. They were unable to coordinate their busy schedules and locate a place since the last meeting.
Gates Committee members will be contacted by Haven Management and advised of the committee meeting date and location. The committee will meet and discuss options for maintaining and enhancing the gates. The committee will then present its ideas to the board and the board will vote to proceed or not to proceed.
A preliminary poll of all homeowners will be taken to find out which direction the committee should move on the gates. If enhancements are being considered that are over the existing gate reserves, an official vote of the homeowners will have to take place for more funding.
The Gates Committee is open to all homeowners; if you are interested in serving, contact Nadine at Haven Management, nadine@haven-management.net , and you will be notified of the upcoming meeting.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Comment on Sept 9
Homeowers must keep in mind that you get what you elect. This past election had to go three rounds before the election was official. If there is not a quorum (51%)at election date, the required quorum is cut in half each month. This required quorum reduction will continue each month. The last election was determined by about 13% of the homeowners.If the voters assign their proxy's to the board, the board will use the proxys to re-elect themselves.The most powerful tool homeowners have in controlling the HOA is through the election process. If the homeowners what to conrol the HOA, they must first control the elections.The board members that originally approved the installation of the gated community were not re-elected. The guard shack committe chairperson was one of those board members.Since the entire association, not just the gated homes, voted in the general election these board members were voted off in the two elections that succeeded the gate installation.There was never a clear and decisive vote count that led up to the final gate decision. Votes were collected and kept secret at the management company's office. The vote time limit was extended at least two additional times. And the final vote counting exercise was not done in a public forum, or at a HOA meeting.Board members have a obligation to be open with the homeowners, but homeowners have an obligation to be vigilant as well.
September 9, 2008 4:20 PM
September 9, 2008 4:20 PM
Comment on Sept 1
Anonymous said...
I find it very concerning that the board would allow any individual home owner to offer any service to the association without first disclosing the name of that home owner to all other association members. I can appreciate that people may want to volunteer for certain small projects like Christmans decorations and the like. However a project of this scale and expense should have every disclosre required by our rules and the laws governing these types of HOAs.If it turns out that any board member has not followed our rules concerning full disclosure, then they need to be recalled from serving on our board. We should never tolerate any behind the scene deals or planning by our elected board members.
September 1, 2008 11:51 PM
I find it very concerning that the board would allow any individual home owner to offer any service to the association without first disclosing the name of that home owner to all other association members. I can appreciate that people may want to volunteer for certain small projects like Christmans decorations and the like. However a project of this scale and expense should have every disclosre required by our rules and the laws governing these types of HOAs.If it turns out that any board member has not followed our rules concerning full disclosure, then they need to be recalled from serving on our board. We should never tolerate any behind the scene deals or planning by our elected board members.
September 1, 2008 11:51 PM
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Response 8-30-08 3:30 pm
When we heard that the La Verne Live Oak board of directors were once again pushing to have a guard house installed at the lower gates, at an estimated cost of $1000.00 per home for the initial assessment, plus $80 - $100 per month additional HOA dues to keep up this guard house, a handful of homeowner’s attended the board meeting to gather more information.
We were told at that meeting in July that there was not an official gate committee formed yet, just a couple of homeowners investigating the situation, at their own expense. A homeowner at the meeting volunteered to be on the committee, and was told he could, and that unofficial-committee would contact him. He never heard from them.
It was asked of the board, by homeowners at the July meeting, that nothing be done to move forward on the guard gates until a poll was taken of all the homeowners behind the gates to see if there was even enough interest in the guard house to pursue this. The board said that they would discuss this request and take a vote amongst themselves. We heard that they agreed to send out an initial poll to all members.
In the meantime, before the August board meeting, some homeowners gathered to come up with some wording and items that they would like to see on the initial poll.
Here is the list of their suggestions:
1. Shall the LVLO HOA install a guard house with a manned 24 hour guard at the south entrance of the LVLO homes, with a camera installed at the north gate which will be controlled by the guard at the south gate, where every car will be approved before entering the complex?
2. Shall the LVLO HOA install a guard building with manned 24 hour guards at the south entrance and also the north entrance of the LVLO homes?
3. Shall the LVLO HOA improve the gates, so that they function correctly, with no adding of guard house and no guards?
4. Shall the LVLO HOA remove the gates, all together?
The reasons this group is against having a 24 hour guard at one or both gates are as follows:
Too costly
Edgewater homeowners already pay 2 association fees, $100 & $96 per month.
There is virtually no crime now behind the existing gates.
The inconvenience to come and go from our neighborhood will be monumental, with lines to get inside the gates extending out on to Esperanza.
This will not raise home values as touted, but may even deter buyers because of the excess HOA dues.
It is not the responsibility of the HOA to increase members’ home values, if so it should be done fairly to all homeowner, even outside the gates.
The guard will have no authority.
This group of homeowners also wanted to request of the board that when this is dropped, to place a moratorium on this issue, not to be brought up again for at least 10 years.
Before the August HOA meeting, the neighbors all received a letter encouraging them to attend this next meeting to let their voices be heard.
The turn out of interested homeowners was large, probably 60 to 70 people. The meeting room was too small to allow all homeowners in to even hear what was taking place in the meeting.
It was requested that there be a special meeting, inviting all homeowners, in a room large enough to accommodate everyone, in the near future and that the discussion be stopped at that time. The members were told by the board president that he was not sure he could do that, that it might not be legal.
Hopefully we will all hear something soon from Haven Management regarding the special meeting. Nadine Gump is their representative for our association.
If the board does not grant its members a special meeting, the members can get together and have their own meeting, in a large room, to discuss this matter.
We were told at that meeting in July that there was not an official gate committee formed yet, just a couple of homeowners investigating the situation, at their own expense. A homeowner at the meeting volunteered to be on the committee, and was told he could, and that unofficial-committee would contact him. He never heard from them.
It was asked of the board, by homeowners at the July meeting, that nothing be done to move forward on the guard gates until a poll was taken of all the homeowners behind the gates to see if there was even enough interest in the guard house to pursue this. The board said that they would discuss this request and take a vote amongst themselves. We heard that they agreed to send out an initial poll to all members.
In the meantime, before the August board meeting, some homeowners gathered to come up with some wording and items that they would like to see on the initial poll.
Here is the list of their suggestions:
1. Shall the LVLO HOA install a guard house with a manned 24 hour guard at the south entrance of the LVLO homes, with a camera installed at the north gate which will be controlled by the guard at the south gate, where every car will be approved before entering the complex?
2. Shall the LVLO HOA install a guard building with manned 24 hour guards at the south entrance and also the north entrance of the LVLO homes?
3. Shall the LVLO HOA improve the gates, so that they function correctly, with no adding of guard house and no guards?
4. Shall the LVLO HOA remove the gates, all together?
The reasons this group is against having a 24 hour guard at one or both gates are as follows:
Too costly
Edgewater homeowners already pay 2 association fees, $100 & $96 per month.
There is virtually no crime now behind the existing gates.
The inconvenience to come and go from our neighborhood will be monumental, with lines to get inside the gates extending out on to Esperanza.
This will not raise home values as touted, but may even deter buyers because of the excess HOA dues.
It is not the responsibility of the HOA to increase members’ home values, if so it should be done fairly to all homeowner, even outside the gates.
The guard will have no authority.
This group of homeowners also wanted to request of the board that when this is dropped, to place a moratorium on this issue, not to be brought up again for at least 10 years.
Before the August HOA meeting, the neighbors all received a letter encouraging them to attend this next meeting to let their voices be heard.
The turn out of interested homeowners was large, probably 60 to 70 people. The meeting room was too small to allow all homeowners in to even hear what was taking place in the meeting.
It was requested that there be a special meeting, inviting all homeowners, in a room large enough to accommodate everyone, in the near future and that the discussion be stopped at that time. The members were told by the board president that he was not sure he could do that, that it might not be legal.
Hopefully we will all hear something soon from Haven Management regarding the special meeting. Nadine Gump is their representative for our association.
If the board does not grant its members a special meeting, the members can get together and have their own meeting, in a large room, to discuss this matter.
Response 8-30-08 9:45 am
Had no idea that crime was so rampit here that we need to have a guard shack and 24 hour guards. Shouldn`t we have been informed of this for our own security! Isn`t that what the HOA is required to do? I am sure this gate thing is not a security issue but possibly an ego issue......my vote is NO GUARD SHACK now or ever!!!!!
Friday, August 29, 2008
Response 8-29-08 8:35 am
Friends and Neighbors,
I feel better this morning since I have gotten compliments and encouragement from those who were there or heard about the meeting Thursday night. The attitude of the president and his friend, who acted as a sixth or seventh member of the board ( will have to include Ms Gump who shouted at me as if she were a member). No one is to speak or defend oneself if those two have the floor. Much has happened since that meeting and we are getting together another meeting, someplace big enough to handle all of those who wish to attend.
We received this email about a blog but did not know who sent it, but have since determined it to be one of us and it sounds like a good idea to have a way to communicate with everyone.
I feel better this morning since I have gotten compliments and encouragement from those who were there or heard about the meeting Thursday night. The attitude of the president and his friend, who acted as a sixth or seventh member of the board ( will have to include Ms Gump who shouted at me as if she were a member). No one is to speak or defend oneself if those two have the floor. Much has happened since that meeting and we are getting together another meeting, someplace big enough to handle all of those who wish to attend.
We received this email about a blog but did not know who sent it, but have since determined it to be one of us and it sounds like a good idea to have a way to communicate with everyone.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Comment 8/28/08 8:00 PM
Does anyone have an explanation of how the board works and what the management company has to do with it. Was there a representative there last night? (this person was stuck in the hallway and never made it into the meeting room) If the board members do not get paid any money why would they do it? Like some politicians I guess for ego and their own $ agenda. And yet we need someone to be willing to take this job. And yet who would do it with no pay, agenda or need for ego "enhancement". It would be a thankless job because you are always going to piss somebody off.
Response 8-28 4:39 PM
I do not get to attend many board meetings, but I did attend the meeting on Wednesday night. I was very disappointed with the new chairman of the gate enhancement committee. Although I give him credit for taking the position, his attitude, speech, and departure did not impress me. I am against a silly guard shack but am open to some modest gate enhancements. I agree with the previous response that the survey should include a response for "not necessary". Furthermore, I would suggest a survey question about money. For instance, "How much would you be willing to spend, as a one time assessment, for any possible gate enhancements?" These answers could lead the committee into getting reasonable estimates and bids. Just a thought. Thanks again to the opposition for making me aware of the situation.
Welcome to the LVLO HOA Blog - Community Blog
This blog is created for La Verne Live Oak Homeowners to communicate. Right now there is a situation going on regarding gate enhancements. Much communication is taking place amongst neighbors and this blog will allow everyone to hear the discussion. Names will be removed from the comments. The source of the comments will come from the emails that are going around to the neighbors.
If you do not want your email on this blog, you can comment anonymously to have it removed.
If you would like to have your thought added to this blog, email them to: LVLOGates@gmail.com
Here is the first letter that got it all started:
ATTENTION LIVE OAK HOMEOWNERS
PROPOSED GUARD SHACK AT SOUTH ENTRANCE IS BACK!!!
Even though concerned homeowners were able to put a stop to this ill advised and extremely costly proposal twice before, quite unbelievably it’s back again.
In June we saw the cryptic term “gate enhancement” on the agenda for the June 25th meeting of the Live Oak Home Owner’s Association Board of Directors Meeting. Being somewhat familiar with the true implication of this highly evasive term, I took it upon myself to attend this meeting, and learned that the infamous guard shack proposal has once again been raised. This project would involve total demolition of the current south entrance area, erection of a guard building (complete with toilet and shower facilities and sophisticated electronic equipment), and hiring of guards to man it on a 24/7 basis. It should be noted that the north gate would only be upgraded with the installation of a video camera, which would be remotely monitored at the guard shack.
This time the madness is being proposed by realtor --, who has formed and chairs an “informal committee” consisting of himself, Live Oak Board HOA President, --, and --. The stated purpose for the formation of this committee was to develop a proposal, obtain “best case scenario” costs and “sell” the project to the homeowners. Mr. -- stated that this project is not designed to increase security within the community, but rather to increase property values. Another realtor, who also lives at the south gate, takes exception to that rationale.
While at the June meeting, I strongly voiced my opposition to this proposal but, as might be expected given the minimal details provided to homeowners in advance of the meeting, I was the only opponent in attendance. Two of the HOA board members, --- and --, live near the south gate and support the proposal.
With word of the proposal getting around the community, the July meeting was attended by many more homeowners who also voiced their strong opposition. It should be noted that, at this meeting, -- did express concern about the potential costs involved to the homeowners.
Under the draft proposal, each homeowner, regardless of location within the gates, would be responsible for paying a one-time assessment of approximately $1,000.00, and possibly more. There would also be an ongoing homeowner assessment of approximately $88.00 per month to cover the costs of guard wages, insurance, building and equipment maintenance and repair, etc. This assessment, with anticipated increases, would continue in perpetuity. When it was suggested that some homeowners living on a limited, fixed income might not be in a position to absorb the initial assessment, the “committee” suggested that a payment plan be made available.
It’s important to note that all of the guard shacks constructed at the entrances to various gated communities in north La Verne are currently empty. It’s blatantly obvious that these homeowners have found that the costs involved in maintaining guards simply doesn’t make economic sense. Add to this the extreme inconvenience to visitors and guests of homeowners in dealing with a highly controlled entrance that, admittedly, does nothing to increase security, and one must question the value and return on investment of such a proposal.
Aside from the irrational and extravagant costs to existing homeowners, it’s been noted that the monthly assessments would be a significant deterrent to potential home purchasers, making homes in the community even more unlikely to sell in these difficult economic times.
The next meeting of the Live Oak Homeowners Association is scheduled to be held on Wednesday, August 27th beginning at 7:00 PM at the La Verne Community Center at 3660 D Street, Class Room 1. Please attend this meeting to voice your opposition to this proposal. It should be noted that parking is quite limited due to ongoing sports activities at the Bonita High School fields, so it would be advisable to arrive early.
A homeowners committee has been formed to oppose this project. If you’re among those who oppose the project and you’d like to help or simply receive regular status reports.....
Meeting Results - 8/27/08
Earlier this afternoon we sent you an e-mail stating that the guard house proposal would be eliminated this evening at the Live Oak HOA meeting.
Unfortunately, that was far from the case. They have no intention of eliminating this proposal. Instead, they are continuing to press ahead with the Gate "Enhancement" Committee planning meetings, with -- as chairman, to look into all aspects of gate improvements, including the guard house. They are also looking at simply installing new gates as another option. A number of our own committee members have requested inclusion in -- committee. We requested, and the Board agreed, to hold a public meeting about this issue at a location large enough to hold everyone. At this time we do not know when this meeting will take place but all homeowners behind the gate will receive notification.
In order to speak at this meeting you will need the notify the appropriate entity shown on the notice prior to the stated meeting. You will not be able to fill out a card at the beginning of the meeting and speak at that time. The Board also has every intention of sending out a survey to let people vote on which type of gate improvement they want, i.e., replace gates, build a guard house, etc. The majority (a simple 51% of the homeowners behind the gates), must approve of one of the options presented in order for the work to proceed.
Many of you came to the meeting to show your support and some of you voiced your opposition to this proposal. We sincerely thank you for your support.
We are very disappointed at this outcome but we will continue to fight the guard house.
Response to Meeting by homeowner 8/28/08
Thank you for bringing all of this to light for people like me that only open their bills once a week and throw the other stuff out. If -- didn't live on my block, I would have just found a bill for $1000 plus dollars for a guard shack one day in my mail box.
Thoughts:
I think that people who did research on the subject should make a written statement and send it to the board/ HOA, per -- email regarding HOA's.
When the next proposed meeting is or isn't announced we need to be sure everyone is aware of when it is by letter or flyer.
A simple beginning statement about what is proposed. Not emotional, just fact. asking everyone to be there or at least stay informed, then bullet points from concerned homeowners , with authors names attributed to statement. Short statements condensed from letters sent to HOA. Nothing that could be considered libel.
At the end of letter, state that yes this letter is sent from homeowners who oppose this proposed project but please come and make up your own mind so that we the Homeowners are properly represented.
They are counting on passive people like me, that just open the letter to see if they are in violation and then throw the letter away when it says "gate enhancement". I thought that meant they were going to paint the gates.
Neighbor Response 8/28/08
To All,
Hopefully the survey the board sends out will also include an option to keep the gate as it is, if that is also a feasible option. I am not convinced that those wanting to "enhance" the gates have proven that the current gate set up actually needs to be completely torn out and replaced. And I really question this logic since for many years the idea with some has been to rebuild only the south gate, leaving the north gate as it is, and only adding a remote/guard camera system on the north gate. If the gate system is so inadequate, then I wonder why it was only the south gate that was a problem? I suspect that there is really nothing structural or mechanically wrong with either gate, and that this has nothing to do with any real need to completely replace the current gate system. Although at least now with new members added to the 'gate committee' I am confident that a more balanced review of the current gate system will be presented for association members to consider.
Many may recall that the gates were in fact altered a few years back to divide the gates (each exit and entrance side) so that there are now two swinging gates with two motors each. This was done because it was decided that with having only one large swinging gate, the weight of pulling a longer gate open on one motor alone, was too much for that motor to handle, and therefore causing too many break downs. To my knowledge that change has made the gates function much better, so I would be interested to hear once again the reason why they feel that a complete change in the current gates is warranted. And then of course the question of why if a change in the current gate system needs a 24 hour hour guard? There are so many unanswered questions about this proposal -- and stated "need to replace the gates", that I hope that those who signed up to be on the gate committee, will bring these points up.
I wasn't able to attend the meeting (I work the night shift), however from what others have said, the gate committee chairman did not seem very pleased to have to answer the concerns being raised by other members of the association. I feel that this is an unfortunate attitude for him to take, as we all share an equal interest in every proposal within this home owners association, and are all entitled to having our questions answered, and our points of view respected. It was also troubling to hear that some inappropriate comments were made in the hallway outside the meeting by a certain person, which were directed at a few our concerned homeowners who showed up in opposition to this guard gate proposal. I don't believe that type of attitude is going to help this situation, or is one that any of us needs to accept.
Thank you for allowing me to share my views on this matter. I hope others feel comfortable in doing the same... and also with discussing the matter with other neighbors not already included on this e-mail list. I feel that this is not an issue that should require people to fight over, but all points of view do need to be considered and also respected. I can say that for myself, I am not convinced that a 24 hour guard is either warranted, or a good value for our money. But with that being said, I also would not be unwilling to consider some changes/upgrades to the gate system, as long as they are logical and have been thoroughly reviewed by a fair and balanced gate committee. One open to all of our neighbors' concerns and questions, and in keeping with a good fiscal policy for the association.
Thanks again -- for providing us with this information forum, and to all the other neighbors who have shown support and interest in this issue, and also those who signed up to be on the gate committee.
If you do not want your email on this blog, you can comment anonymously to have it removed.
If you would like to have your thought added to this blog, email them to: LVLOGates@gmail.com
Here is the first letter that got it all started:
ATTENTION LIVE OAK HOMEOWNERS
PROPOSED GUARD SHACK AT SOUTH ENTRANCE IS BACK!!!
Even though concerned homeowners were able to put a stop to this ill advised and extremely costly proposal twice before, quite unbelievably it’s back again.
In June we saw the cryptic term “gate enhancement” on the agenda for the June 25th meeting of the Live Oak Home Owner’s Association Board of Directors Meeting. Being somewhat familiar with the true implication of this highly evasive term, I took it upon myself to attend this meeting, and learned that the infamous guard shack proposal has once again been raised. This project would involve total demolition of the current south entrance area, erection of a guard building (complete with toilet and shower facilities and sophisticated electronic equipment), and hiring of guards to man it on a 24/7 basis. It should be noted that the north gate would only be upgraded with the installation of a video camera, which would be remotely monitored at the guard shack.
This time the madness is being proposed by realtor --, who has formed and chairs an “informal committee” consisting of himself, Live Oak Board HOA President, --, and --. The stated purpose for the formation of this committee was to develop a proposal, obtain “best case scenario” costs and “sell” the project to the homeowners. Mr. -- stated that this project is not designed to increase security within the community, but rather to increase property values. Another realtor, who also lives at the south gate, takes exception to that rationale.
While at the June meeting, I strongly voiced my opposition to this proposal but, as might be expected given the minimal details provided to homeowners in advance of the meeting, I was the only opponent in attendance. Two of the HOA board members, --- and --, live near the south gate and support the proposal.
With word of the proposal getting around the community, the July meeting was attended by many more homeowners who also voiced their strong opposition. It should be noted that, at this meeting, -- did express concern about the potential costs involved to the homeowners.
Under the draft proposal, each homeowner, regardless of location within the gates, would be responsible for paying a one-time assessment of approximately $1,000.00, and possibly more. There would also be an ongoing homeowner assessment of approximately $88.00 per month to cover the costs of guard wages, insurance, building and equipment maintenance and repair, etc. This assessment, with anticipated increases, would continue in perpetuity. When it was suggested that some homeowners living on a limited, fixed income might not be in a position to absorb the initial assessment, the “committee” suggested that a payment plan be made available.
It’s important to note that all of the guard shacks constructed at the entrances to various gated communities in north La Verne are currently empty. It’s blatantly obvious that these homeowners have found that the costs involved in maintaining guards simply doesn’t make economic sense. Add to this the extreme inconvenience to visitors and guests of homeowners in dealing with a highly controlled entrance that, admittedly, does nothing to increase security, and one must question the value and return on investment of such a proposal.
Aside from the irrational and extravagant costs to existing homeowners, it’s been noted that the monthly assessments would be a significant deterrent to potential home purchasers, making homes in the community even more unlikely to sell in these difficult economic times.
The next meeting of the Live Oak Homeowners Association is scheduled to be held on Wednesday, August 27th beginning at 7:00 PM at the La Verne Community Center at 3660 D Street, Class Room 1. Please attend this meeting to voice your opposition to this proposal. It should be noted that parking is quite limited due to ongoing sports activities at the Bonita High School fields, so it would be advisable to arrive early.
A homeowners committee has been formed to oppose this project. If you’re among those who oppose the project and you’d like to help or simply receive regular status reports.....
Meeting Results - 8/27/08
Earlier this afternoon we sent you an e-mail stating that the guard house proposal would be eliminated this evening at the Live Oak HOA meeting.
Unfortunately, that was far from the case. They have no intention of eliminating this proposal. Instead, they are continuing to press ahead with the Gate "Enhancement" Committee planning meetings, with -- as chairman, to look into all aspects of gate improvements, including the guard house. They are also looking at simply installing new gates as another option. A number of our own committee members have requested inclusion in -- committee. We requested, and the Board agreed, to hold a public meeting about this issue at a location large enough to hold everyone. At this time we do not know when this meeting will take place but all homeowners behind the gate will receive notification.
In order to speak at this meeting you will need the notify the appropriate entity shown on the notice prior to the stated meeting. You will not be able to fill out a card at the beginning of the meeting and speak at that time. The Board also has every intention of sending out a survey to let people vote on which type of gate improvement they want, i.e., replace gates, build a guard house, etc. The majority (a simple 51% of the homeowners behind the gates), must approve of one of the options presented in order for the work to proceed.
Many of you came to the meeting to show your support and some of you voiced your opposition to this proposal. We sincerely thank you for your support.
We are very disappointed at this outcome but we will continue to fight the guard house.
Response to Meeting by homeowner 8/28/08
Thank you for bringing all of this to light for people like me that only open their bills once a week and throw the other stuff out. If -- didn't live on my block, I would have just found a bill for $1000 plus dollars for a guard shack one day in my mail box.
Thoughts:
I think that people who did research on the subject should make a written statement and send it to the board/ HOA, per -- email regarding HOA's.
When the next proposed meeting is or isn't announced we need to be sure everyone is aware of when it is by letter or flyer.
A simple beginning statement about what is proposed. Not emotional, just fact. asking everyone to be there or at least stay informed, then bullet points from concerned homeowners , with authors names attributed to statement. Short statements condensed from letters sent to HOA. Nothing that could be considered libel.
At the end of letter, state that yes this letter is sent from homeowners who oppose this proposed project but please come and make up your own mind so that we the Homeowners are properly represented.
They are counting on passive people like me, that just open the letter to see if they are in violation and then throw the letter away when it says "gate enhancement". I thought that meant they were going to paint the gates.
Neighbor Response 8/28/08
To All,
Hopefully the survey the board sends out will also include an option to keep the gate as it is, if that is also a feasible option. I am not convinced that those wanting to "enhance" the gates have proven that the current gate set up actually needs to be completely torn out and replaced. And I really question this logic since for many years the idea with some has been to rebuild only the south gate, leaving the north gate as it is, and only adding a remote/guard camera system on the north gate. If the gate system is so inadequate, then I wonder why it was only the south gate that was a problem? I suspect that there is really nothing structural or mechanically wrong with either gate, and that this has nothing to do with any real need to completely replace the current gate system. Although at least now with new members added to the 'gate committee' I am confident that a more balanced review of the current gate system will be presented for association members to consider.
Many may recall that the gates were in fact altered a few years back to divide the gates (each exit and entrance side) so that there are now two swinging gates with two motors each. This was done because it was decided that with having only one large swinging gate, the weight of pulling a longer gate open on one motor alone, was too much for that motor to handle, and therefore causing too many break downs. To my knowledge that change has made the gates function much better, so I would be interested to hear once again the reason why they feel that a complete change in the current gates is warranted. And then of course the question of why if a change in the current gate system needs a 24 hour hour guard? There are so many unanswered questions about this proposal -- and stated "need to replace the gates", that I hope that those who signed up to be on the gate committee, will bring these points up.
I wasn't able to attend the meeting (I work the night shift), however from what others have said, the gate committee chairman did not seem very pleased to have to answer the concerns being raised by other members of the association. I feel that this is an unfortunate attitude for him to take, as we all share an equal interest in every proposal within this home owners association, and are all entitled to having our questions answered, and our points of view respected. It was also troubling to hear that some inappropriate comments were made in the hallway outside the meeting by a certain person, which were directed at a few our concerned homeowners who showed up in opposition to this guard gate proposal. I don't believe that type of attitude is going to help this situation, or is one that any of us needs to accept.
Thank you for allowing me to share my views on this matter. I hope others feel comfortable in doing the same... and also with discussing the matter with other neighbors not already included on this e-mail list. I feel that this is not an issue that should require people to fight over, but all points of view do need to be considered and also respected. I can say that for myself, I am not convinced that a 24 hour guard is either warranted, or a good value for our money. But with that being said, I also would not be unwilling to consider some changes/upgrades to the gate system, as long as they are logical and have been thoroughly reviewed by a fair and balanced gate committee. One open to all of our neighbors' concerns and questions, and in keeping with a good fiscal policy for the association.
Thanks again -- for providing us with this information forum, and to all the other neighbors who have shown support and interest in this issue, and also those who signed up to be on the gate committee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)