|
AUGUST 2008 ISSUE We do not make jokes, we simply watch the LA Times, the Orange County Register and CID/HOA board of directors and report the facts! |
||||||||
|
LETTERS Meniffe's 55+ Not Very Good Year(s)
Open letter to Mr. Tom Thurman, President of SCCA
August
5,
2008 Responding to a post by SCCA president Tom Thurman on Meniffe247.com, Therese Daniels writes: “Therese Daniels' statements, as quoted, on menifee247.com
June 13,2008 are untrue.”- Tom Thurman
My statements are quite true.
If you can prove other wise, I will then and only then
take back my words and apologize. “She is accusing a deceased former SCCA board member of
chicanery involved in the recording of the Sun City
Civic Association's First Amended & Consolidated
Declaration of Restrictions. She even accused her of
doing something illegal. May Jean Roberge rest in peace. It
still doesn’t alter the fact she headed up a project
approved by the SCCA Board called “Project 55” for
the purpose of obtaining 250 signatures on a petition
to get the CC&R’s amended from age 18+ to 55+.
According to the SCCA bylaws of that time the petition
was required to get the amendment put on a ballot so
members could vote approval or not. (everything has
been convoluted so many times by the board and its
attorneys since then, who knows what they say now)
Where is that ballot? Where if there was a
ballot is the voting results of the ballot? How
come you are not aware of “Project 55”? Why
was “project 55” ever begun if SCCA already had a
55+ only status? What you do not know,
Mr. Thurman, is that I saw a document filed with the
county recorder signed by Jean Roberge with only her
signature on it. My only mistake was to fail to
get a copy of that document when I had the chance.
If you research the minutes and other documents during
the years of 1997 through 2001, you may find abundant
information that will substantiate my claim.
However, I think you would prefer to make me bad and
wrong than admit the mistakes of the SCCA Board. Now here is where this mess gets tricky.
Where is there a copy of the ballot asking for the
approval vote? It may have been sent, but I don’t
remember it. The 1997 consolidation to which Mr.
Thurman is referring was created by very clever
attorneys at the behest of the SCCA Board members.
The attorneys were paid with SCCA membership money.
Do you really think the membership was consulted about
the content of this consolidation document?
Who approved it? The majority of the SCCA Board? Or
did the 2/3 of the membership approve it-- which is
what is required when CC&R’s are being amended?
The SCCA Board simply adopted the age 55+ restriction
and included it in the consolidation and passed it off
on the membership without a ballot and without
membership full knowledge and understanding of
consolidated declarations of 1997 tracts allegedly
signed. Again, I ask where is the ballot
asking for an amendment for an age restriction that
the membership was to vote upon? Show us that ballot?
Show us the ballot that gave SCCA Board then authority
to hire Epsten & Grinnel to rewrite the whole
enchilada! Once the Epsten and Grinnel brought SCCA
Board legally along that far and this very
questionable document recorded, it was all over for
the membership to ever hope to fight a legal battle as
to what and how they did this. Though at the time, I
am certain no one ever thought to fight the Board or
the document. Most members just fell into place
like sheep. “. . . The signing of this amendment was authorized by a
majority vote of the Board of Directors of the SCCA at
a meeting on 08/16/2001.” - Tom Thurman
Check it out.
Mr. Thurman admits the Board--
I repeat the -- SCCA
Board of just seven members signed this document.
At this stage you can argue that it is the Board’s
duty to sign on behalf of the membership. That I
would agree. However, at what point did the
Board get permission
from the membership
to do so? I was around then. I don’t
remember being asked. Show
me where 2/3 of the membership voted approval for and
signed an amendment to the age restriction! “ . . .This amendment was required to maintain compliance
with the current requirements of State and Federal law
applicable to housing for senior citizens.”- Tom Thurman
It is interesting that SCCA Board failed
to comply with its legal obligations after Jean
Roberge obtained her 250 signed petition, to place
this amendment on the ballot to obtain a 2/3
membership vote; but SCCA is so concerned about
maintaining compliance regarding senior housing.
Could it be there is something wrong with this
picture? Isn’t this a standard response when
people don’t know what else to say. She is a
real estate agent and has self interest and wants to
make a lot of money. I normally ignore such
stupidity but I am going to answer it this time in
hopes it enlightens people to reality. The majority of
the years I practiced real estate was in Los Angeles
where the big money is. A realtor isn’t
confined to one little tiny area like Sun City Core
where the property values are among the lowest in
California and the deals are the most difficult to
close. The real money properties are built all
around and right to the borders of Sun City . They
sell for more money, less aggravation, and no the
added problem of age restrictions. Any realtor can
make a great living without ever having to sell one
45+ year old property in the core when the market
is just a little better than the one we are in. “Stupid is what stupid does.”
Forrest Gump So Mr. Thurman,
take you head out of the sand and look around. After
that, take a Fleets enema, to clear your head. Sun
City is obsolete with its 40+ year old properties,
perma rock landscaping, and oleander bushes cut to
only six feet. I have no personal agenda to get
rich on the poorest, most difficult properties in the
state of California . Yes, it is true. You bet I would
like to see the core opened to all ages. So
would a whole lot of other SCCA members. This would be
in the highest and best interest of every property
owner and member in the core. It will also bring fresh
and new energy to this tired old core. It will
help us transform into the new Menifee City and the 21
first century. In case you haven’t noticed,
Mr. Thurman, times, life styles, attitudes, and needs
have changed since 1964. It is time SCCA awaken,
step out of its time capsule and change come into the
21 first century. If you want to accuse me of ulterior
motives, Let me go one better. I would like to
see entire SCCA dissolved. It is no
longer needed and except for the 300 to 500 people who
still use the facilities you so affectionately call
“the Campus”, no one cares about the activities.
This is a different world. People are into
computers and gyms. SCCA is nothing but a money pit.
It offers no services of any value to me and over
4,000 of the rest of the members. Yet we are
forced to pay for the rest of the dinosaurs who are
still living in prehistoric times. Housing
is the economic backbone of America . When the housing
market gets in trouble, the entire economic balance of
the country tumbles down with it. Home ownership is
the great American dream. It is family shelter and its
investment. For most people it is the greatest
investment of their life time. People are entitled
to get the highest and best value from their
properties. This is not only good investment,
and the American way, but it is moral, ethical, and
right. Any one will agree with these thoughts
except for the SCCA Board and a handful of
recalcitrant members. SCCA
is the perfect example why deed restricted titles are
inferior to all other titles. People cannot
control their investments because the investments are
in the control of Boards of Directors who think
they know-- but don’t know the first thing about
property value.-- The SCCA’s board minimized,
depreciated, and devalued the real estate of its own members when it imposed the
55+ restriction. Isn’t
it disgusting, Mr. Thurman, that the people who bought
into this community with their life savings trusted
the SCCA Board of Directors to safeguard their
investment only to see it fail? Isn’t it
pitiful, Mr. Thurman, that people bought into Sun City
Core hoping it would be a good plan for their old age
only to lose it in foreclosure because of a minimum
market created by age restriction? Isn’t
this, Mr. Thurman, the ultimate betrayal of the SCCA
Board to its members? Where is your concern for the
welfare of the members. Money is a very real
need. Without it, people soon become homeless.
You know what happens to the homeless. Where have all
the members gone who used to live in these abandoned
homes? The
sad reality is SCCA members have been harmed by the
55+ restrictions in many, many ways. There are
families whose older children who have fallen upon
hard times these past few years who can not help their
children by sharing their home because of the age
restriction. There are others who were counting
on the sale of their property to take them into
another life style who couldn’t sell their homes and
lost them in foreclosure. There are several
abandoned homes because it is easier to just let them
rot than to attempt to sell or rent because of the age
restrictions. The people in the core cannot
refinance because values are so low. The families with
gorgeous homes at the borders of the core cannot
refinance either because the core neighborhood
depreciates the value of their property. These are
just a few reasons why age restricted communities are
not in the highest and best interest of titleholders.
The horror stories go on and on and on. What
about the welfare of these good, innocent and somewhat
naïve families, Mr. Thurman? Don’t you care
about them? I do.
“There are no laws that would allow us to lower the age
limit to 18, 25, or 45. This would be illegal
discrimination and we would be in violation of the
Federal Fair Housing Act of 1988.” Tom
Thurman You
are quite correct when you say there are no laws that
would allow SCCA to return to the original adult only
age 18+ status when Sun City was first developed.
The Unruh act erased that. However, there is
nothing stopping Sun City From removing the 55+
restriction and start to restore property values so
members could enjoy some equity. Menifee Valley Talk Radio plans to do
several programs about the benefits and liabilities of
age restricted communities. I would like to take
this opportunity to invite you to be our guest speaker
so you can tell us all about the many benefits there
are to age restricted communities. Please let me
know when you can do this so we can set a date.
Remember, this isn’t meant to be negative publicity.
It is merely meant to expose and disclose the truth
and reality about the stupidity of age restricted
communities. People need to know. Please, show me the ballot SCCA sent to
the membership to ask for their 2/3 voter approval on
the 55+ age restriction amendment. Therese Daniels
We have forwarded a copy of this letter to the Mr. Tom Thurman via the SCCA homeowners association and asked for comments.
CotoBlogzz Tagzz - use any number of social networking managers to share this (or any other articles in the Internet) with others...click here and select social bookmarkings threads
COMMENTS
CotoBlogzz Tagzz - use any number of social networking managers to share this (or any other articles in the Internet) with others...click here and select social bookmarkings threads RELATED STORIES New
Golden Rain Foundation Rules of Engagement $2
million Verdict Returned Against Homeowners
Association GRF
2009 Budget Review, Be There or Be Out of Luck! Different
Homeowners Association, Same Issues The
Right LWV Leadership for Such a Time as This? Working
to Serve, Or Serving To Work - Letter to OC Register
Columnist To
Destroy a Community, or to Destroy the Status
Quo?XThat is the Question in this Letter to the
Menifee SCCA Board of Directors
Use any of the social networking managers below to share this or any other article with others....more bookmarking managers
|
ADVERTISEMENT
|
To subscribe/unsubscribe to the CotoBuzz Journal or send
Letters to the Editor
The CotoBuzz Journal P.O. Box 154 Trabuco Canyon, CA 92678 (509) 355-8895
Privacy Policy | Need Help? | Contact Us | Administrator: cotobuzz@yahoo.com