Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Your Rights as a Lake Braddock Homeowner are at Risk.


LAKE BRADDOCK HOMEOWNERS
WHETHER OR NOT YOU’VE VOTED ON THE AMENDMENTS TO THE LBCA GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, PLEASE READ THIS. YOUR RIGHTS ARE AT RISK.
As you know, the Board of Directors has proposed a series of fundamental changes to the LBCA Governing Documents, specifically to a document called the Declaration.  This flier will discuss only the proposed Amendment about Parking.  The Board seems to have figured out that the Homeowners will not tolerate any of the other proposed amendments; but the Board has “leverage” with the Parking amendment.  They know that you want your “assigned” parking spaces back, with your right to the exclusive use of those spaces guaranteed by the Association.  But instead of proposing an amendment that provided what you want, they’re trying to force on you an amendment to increase the Board’s own power.
Their proposed amendment on parking reads as follows:
Article V, Section 1of the Declaration, Members Easement of Enjoyment, shall be amended by adding the following subsection (f):
(f) the right of individual Owners to the exclusive use of assigned parking spaces and the Association’s regulation of assigned parking spaces, overflow parking spaces and/or visitor parking spaces through the granting of easements, licenses, or the promulgation of rules and regulations  to regulate parking on the common areas as the same may be published and amended by the Board of Directors from time to time, which rules and regulations may provide for the impositions of charges and/or limitations on, or suspension of the privilege to use the Association’s common facilities and amenities and/or the use of such parking spaces.
So, your “right” to park will become a “privilege” which the Board will be able to “suspend,” or for which the Board can impose a “charge,” pursuant to any “rule or regulation” that the Board – or any future Board – decides to adopt.  You will have no right to vote on the “rule or regulation,” and if you don’t pay whatever they decide to “charge” you, the Board will be able to “suspend” your “privilege” to park in LBCA.  But keep reading, because that’s just the start.
As you’ve read above, the amendment would permit the Board to impose “charges.”   The Board craves the authority to “fine” you and the “charges” can include (among other things) “fines.”  Virginia Law, the POAA (Sections 55-513.B and 55-516.I)  allows LBCA to collect that charge/fine by auctioning your home on the courthouse steps through nonjudicial foreclosure  without ever going to court.   Somehow, the Board never mentioned this in their effort to increase their own power, but we can’t expect the Board to tell us everything, right?
The powers sought by the Board in this Amendment are exactly the powers that LBCA Homeowners are overwhelmingly rejecting in the proposed “rules” amendment.  The only difference is that, in the “parking” Amendment, the Board has a hostage.  Namely, YOU.
What can You Do?  Here are a few ideas.
First of all, if you haven’t signed the Amendment, please don’t.  To protect your rights, you don’t need to vote at all.  Declining to vote is the same as voting “no.”   If you decide to vote, please vote “no.
If you’ve already voted for this Amendment, please reconsider, and if you decide that you don’t support the Amendment; go to the LBCA Office with a photo ID and tell them to remove any reference to you as having signed to support the Amendment.   (LBCA has a list, by names and addresses of who has -- and hasn’t voted, and how they voted.)  The LBCA Office is located at 9528 Ashbourn Drive, next to the Ashbourn Pool.  
You can discuss your experience with the Office at the website lakebraddockburke.blogspot.com.  You can also go to lakebraddock.com, click on “Your Community,” then “online services” and then “newsletter.”  You’ll have to register.  Once you’ve registered, the “Your Community” pull-down menu will include a button for the “LBCA Discussion Group,” which will open a page where you can click on “Neighborhood Topics.”  Much has been written about the proposed Amendments, and you’ll be able to post.
Blogs are great, but talk live with your neighbors, too.  And speaking of neighbors, consider calling a few Board members to tell them that you do not support, and will not vote for, this Amendment.
Finally -- and most importantly -- tell the Board how you want this situation fixed:  Ask for a revised Amendment that addresses only the restoration of reserved parking spaces.  Anything beyond restoration of reserved parking spaces should be the subject of a separate Amendment
That way, in the separate amendment, the Board can still propose anything they want.  They can ask for all the power they want -- but they won’t be holding your parking spaces “hostage” to get the amendment they want.
Remember, the rights that you’re being asked to “vote away” are your rights. 
Once those rights are gone, you will not get them back.

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Welcome to our Blog!

Well folks, welcome to our Blog. It seems that the people who set the "industry standards" for HOAs are following developments in our little Community Association very closely.

We were recently copied on this little gem:

To: Mr. Wrathbone, CAI National HQ
From: Rebecca, PCAM of Sunnybrook Farm HOA

Jeepers, Mr. Wrathbone, those pesky homeowners in Lake Braddock don't exactly seem to be signing up for the amendments to the Declaration in anything like the numbers we're going to need! I think they may need some help from you folks, since you set the Industry Standard for changes to Governing Documents.

As you know, the HOA Board told the owners that the "reserved" townhouse parking spaces weren't really "reserved" any more and that they'd need 'em to vote for an amendment to the Declaration if they wanted their spaces back. That sure got the owners spun up. But after the HOA spent all that money drafting and "marketing" the amendment, it's just kind of sitting out there without the landslide of signatures the Board expected.

Seems there are a couple of things going on here: Instead of just signing where the Board told 'em to sign, Homeowners are READING what the Board sent out. As you know, that's usually a bad sign. And some of the pesky Homeowners have started to put out fliers explaining the RIGHTS that owners would GIVE UP if they vote for the amendment! Even worse, in the fliers they've told the owners how to link to the transcript of that disaster of a court hearing on the internet! You know, I don't think that even the Board members read that transcript....

What if the owners start telling the Board to draft a much simpler amendment that just restores parking spaces as "rights" and then STOPS? How will the HOA be able to "fine" people and suspend their "privilege" to park?


I still think the HOA should have taken my advice and drafted an amendment with the simple "rule" that ALL UNIT OWNERS MUST HAVE A GOOD ATTITUDE." And if they don't, well the HOA can just "fine" 'em and foreclose nonjudicially to collect the "fine." That sure works swell here in Sunnybrook Farms HOA.


Rebecca, PCAM of Sunnybrook Farms HOA










Here's another item I was copied on:

Sgt Schultz, at CAI General Staff, wrote:

Shhhhhhhh......

Za CAI General Ztaff ist not happy mit der unit owners in Lake Braddock.  Za General Ztaff does not zink zat I zee anyzink because of der sctupid Amerikaner TV show -- but zumtimes der zings I zee are verrrry interestink......

Der LBCA Board hast told der CAI General Ztaff zat der unit owners are beginnink to ask der questions about zese amendments.  Zese are ztandart CAI anebdments, but der Board zays dat der unit owners do not zeem to know vat ist gut fur dem, und will not vollow der Board's directions to vote fur der amendments to gif der Board der power to impose fines etzetera.

Za General Ztaff vast not happy ven der Ztadart CAI amendment about der Kooler vast not even zent out mit der uder amendments fur der vote!  Der Kooler ist not zo bad as der fines, I zink, but I am only der guard......

Zum of der Board members zay dat if der unit owners do not vote fur der amendments -- der Board vill not propose der vun amendment vich der unit owners vanted in der vurst place: an amendment to gif dem back der parking places.  Zounds like "My vay or der autobahn," ya?

I sink I can zee vich vay der vind ist blowink here und I vant you to remenber ven ziz ist over zat I am only za guard und must vollow der CAI orders, ya?

Zo maybe if I help you mit der invermation I stay out of der dock......OK?

Your pal,

Schultzie
CAI General Staff
(but only za guard, right....)

Saturday, December 31, 2011

The LBCA Assessment Amendment


The formula for calculating each year’s monthly assessment from the original Lake Braddock Covenants (the Declaration) is a simple formula consisting of:
  1. A ratio of the new CPI (January CPI from the previous year) to the Base CPI (CPI from January 1970)
  2. Times a base assessment (the original monthly assessment of $12.50)
This formula is a standard method of providing cost escalation based on the inflation rate and is derived from two sentences in Title VI of the Declaration as follows:

Title VI, Section 3 Basis and Maximum of Annual Assessments: Until January 1 of the year following the conveyance of the first lot to an 0wner, the class A members assessment shall be $12.50 per month.

Title VI, Section 3(a): From and after January 1 of the year immediately following the conveyance of the first Lot to an Owner, the maximum annual assessment may be increased effective January I of each year without a vote of the membership in conformance with the rise, if any, of the Consumer Price Index (published by the Department of Labor, Washington, D. C.) for the preceding Month of January 1970.

The third proposed amendment to the Declaration is to replace the National Average CPI with the Washington-Baltimore Area CPI. The amendment replaces the existing Section 3 with a new Section 3 as follows:

Section 3. Basis and Maximum of Annual Assessment.

(a)               After consideration of current maintenance costs and future needs of the Association, the Board of Directors may fix the annual assessment at an amount not in excess of the maximum as set forth in this Section 3.

(b)               From  and  after  January  1  of  the  year  immediately  following  the conveyance of the first Lot to an Owner, the maximum annual assessment may be increased effective January 1 of each year without a vote of the membership in conformance with the rise, if any, of the Washington­ Baltimore Area Consumer Price Index.

The problem is that there is no reference to a base assessment or a base CPI included in the proposed amendment. In fact the amendment specifically states that the Board may fix the annual assessment anyway they want as long as they somehow use the Washington-Baltimore Area CPI. In addition, Section 3 (b) is unworkable on its face simply because the Washington-Baltimore CPI is a relatively new creation with no data prior to the mid 1990s and certainly no data going as far back as the conveyance of the first Lake Braddock lot.

In my opinion this is a formula for disaster. With no specified base assessment or base CPI; each Board will have the freedom to set the assessment to just about any dollar amount they want simply by selecting a new base each year and base assessment at will. There are no protections to the homeowner’s whatsoever from a run-away Board that wants to jack up the assessments on a whim.

This is a bad amendment that leaves the homeowner’s vulnerable to sky-high assessments and I urge all homeowners to reject it.

test

test

Friday, December 30, 2011

Welcome to the Lake Braddock blog.  Feel free to read and comment on the posts.