Notice To Shavano Ridge Homeowners
We are among a growing group of
Shavano Ridge (SR) homeowners who have come into conflict with the Board of
Directors (BOD) of the Shavano Ridge Homeowner’s Association. We are of the
opinion that the BOD have encroached upon the rights of homeowners by exercising
a degree of control that was never intended by the developers or supported by
the subdivisions Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of Sale (CC&Rs). We
have no idea what other homeowners want, but if a democratic process is thought
to be desirable, it requires two things we now lack: oversight and
participation. A homeowner’s association’s
rudimentary system of checks and balances is dependent upon homeowner
participation; when that breaks down, you get oligarchy
- rule
of the few. In SR, years of homeowner indifference seems to have encouraged the
BOD to assume too much responsibility. With almost no common area to
preside over, and the majority of residents preoccupied with jobs and children,
they have progressively expanded their sphere of influence and revoked basic
privileges of homeownership originally granted by the developer. They base their
authority upon the premise that the CC&Rs are subject to their
“interpretation,”
and mean only what they say they
mean. In our dealings with the BOD we have found their interpretations to be
highly creative and inconsistent. We find their manner to be adversarial and
their methods to be unconscionable. In the absence of homeowner participation, we believe they have created new
restrictions based solely on their own personal preferences and applied them in a
selective, arbitrary manner. When differences
develop, the BOD often threatens to sue. When faced with these threats, financed by
the homeowner’s own annual assessments, most homeowners have given in or moved
away. We bring this
situation to your attention for two reasons:
1. We do not believe this group represents the will of the majority. We think it's time for a change, and we would like to know what you think.
2.
We want to introduce a SR community website called The Unofficial SR Website: help
for the homeowner. To find it type http://home.satx.rr.com/usrw
into your Windows Explorer or Netscape browser. There, you can voice your opinions, become informed of recent developments, learn what it really
means to live with a homeowner's association, and vote on policy
issues and representation.
We hope this website will unite
homeowners and give them the voice and the oversight process necessary to insure that elected representatives always
carry out their will. We present our own difficulties with the BOD
as an example of why we think a change is due.
In
April of 2000, we repainted the trim and siding of our home a color matching the
color of our brickwork. Nine months later (Dec. 2000) the BOD sent us notice
that they changed the rules regarding house painting and that we were in
violation of the new rules and must repaint our
house. These new standards were not in effect
at the time we painted our house, and were never defined by the BOD. The BOD wants to
retroactively apply their new rules to us, denying us the “grand fathered
status” which is universally recognized as fair and appropriate in cases like
this. Ironically, in the Oct. 2000 edition of Out On The Ridge, the BOD stated, in writing, that we had followed
their own approved and established procedure for house painting. This procedure
was in effect until Oct. 2000—seven months after we painted our home. This
Board has violated numerous recommendations for reasonable behavior published by
the Community Associations Institute (CAI). In that publication entitled
"Be Reasonable," the CAI delivers this warning: "Overzealous,
unreasonable boards can be more damaging to property values than the violations
they so vigorously try to prevent." We wholeheartedly agree with that
assessment. In spite of the
fact that we agreed we would submit our color choices to the BOD the next time
our house needed painting, the BOD insisted we paint it in Dec. 2003 or face a
lawsuit. We believe that the BOD have
become more interested in exercising their influence than they are in simple
fairness and propriety. To find documentation of our conflict with the
BOD: go to the
Home page > Community Conflicts
> 13707 Ridge River > Homeowner's
Synopsis & Lawyer's Brief.
In our dealings with the BOD, we have found several instances where we believe the BOD is acting irresponsibly. They have established their own color scheme yet refuse to publicly define the colors, thus creating a potential situation for continuous conflicts with homeowners. As a means of conflict resolution, they conduct "informal meetings" and discourage the presence of witnesses. Again, these are violations of CAI recommendations for reasonable behavior.
The BOD has told us that they have decided that Shavano Ridge will reflect a high degree of
standardization. Blandness was stated as the goal. All homes must blend into a
collective whole. “No homes will be allowed to stand out.” None can be
“striking.” Our Centex representative confirmed that the developer was trying to avoid blandness and standardization
by restricting brick colors to non-adjacent homes and offering a custom colors
option. On the website, you will find expert recommendations on the proper
procedure for conceiving rules and regulations. Go to Homepage > The
Shavano Ridge Look > Rule Recommendations.
We believe this Board has stayed too long (some over 10 years), and we have become very suspicious of their motives. We would like to see a changing of the guard and more homeowner participation We would like you to fill out and return the homeowner questionnaire; the results will be posted on the website. We are asking the homeowners to express their willingness to have future disputes resolved in regular meetings with witnesses present. We think fairness can only be preserved in open, public forums, and we believe the BOD should always be willing to defend their actions in front of witnesses. We would like to have new rules and regulations be subject to homeowner's approval, and to have any new rules or standards that are agreed upon clearly defined and documented [it can be done on this website]. We would like to see these issues brought before all the homeowners at the general meeting in March 2004.
Most homeowners have very
busy schedules and little time for neighborhood politics so we’re hoping this
website will make it easy to have a voice in the community and thus increase
participation levels. Also, you will find numerous articles that should help
homeowners become aware of what CC&Rs and homeowner's associations really
are and possibly avoid pitfalls in the future. To have a better understanding of
your position as a homeowner in a homeowner's association, we especially
recommend that you read the articles on the Homeowner's Association page.
This experience has turned our family into dedicated activists for homeowner's
rights, and our efforts to further that cause will not end with the conclusion
of this incident. We invite any homeowner who is
currently having difficulties with the BOD to send in their account of the
situation and it will be posted to the website for homeowner review. The BOD are
invited to express their opinions as well.
We
had hoped that our differences could have been settled amicably. We regret the hard feelings this document is
likely to cause among some residents, but we feel it’s absolutely necessary if
there is to be any chance of bringing about changes we believe are for the
better. In the last issue of Out on the
Ridge, we found another example of why we believe change is needed; we’ll
leave you with this latest contradiction to consider. Bear in mind that our
house was painted in April 2000
- seven
months before the first quote was published.
“Architectural
Control Committee — Policy Change
The Architectural Control Committee (ACC) has been requested to review it’s (sic) present policy of allowing homeowners to paint the exterior of their houses any color (or colors) they choose. At the urging of the Board of Directors, the ACC is now requiring homeowners who wish to paint/repaint the exterior of their houses to submit their color selection(s) to the ACC PRIOR to beginning work.” Out on the Ridge, October 2000
Now
consider this account of the same situation published just this August.
“An
informal meeting was held…seeking resolution of a fifth covenant violation
with a resident who failed to submit an ACC request to repaint his home and then
painted the home in a color not in accordance with the SR house color paint
scheme.”
Out on the Ridge, August 2003
We’re asking the homeowners
of Shavano Ridge; do you really want a BOD that is this careless with the truth?
Dorian and Mary MacDougall