It hurts to be had
Boy oh boy, have we ever been had! And boy oh boy, does it ever hurt!
You expect to be hurt by those you know are after your scalp, but when you are sold out by neighbors you’ve come to like and trust, the hurt just can’t seem to hit bottom.
Certain directors, better called “Directators,” can deny it until the cows come home, but the truth has been outed.
There is a group—a fifth column of sorts—entrenched in high places, determined to turn Leisure World into an upscale, gated enclave for wealthy people.
Why should it come as a surprise that there are those among us who will give us the Judas sell-out if they might pick up 30,000 pieces of silver. Maybe more.
If you’re an insider, hold stock in the rebuilder who has zeroed in on our land, have enough money socked away to last out the tripling of carrying charges that would follow, for who knows how long, you could be one of the chosen who will pocket a profit.
Tough luck if you live in a 12-unit one-story apartment. They will be the first to make way for luxury high-rises, playgrounds, tennis courts and full-size golf course a luxury complex must have. Tough luck if you should need to sell during the devaluation period that allows the rebuilder to grab land on the cheap.
That’s what this emasculation of founding documents is all about: this fighting off of Davis-Stirling safeguards for homeowners, this blocking a HUD veto by paying off mortgages three years early and the enabling of whopping legal fees—all contrived to breach the barricades that have been erected to safeguard homeownership.
After the last elections, the activists were on Cloud 9. The infamous power bloc took a drubbing. Down, but not out. It is claimed they circulated rumors that set the reformers at each others throats. Holy mackerel! We’re practically back to square one.
That is not acceptable. It’s time for shareholders to demand that the “directators” stop playing kickball with our rights.
We own Leisure World, and it’s high time we acted like owners.
Dissension in homeowner associations is caused by actions taken or proposed by the board of directors that run counter to wishes of the homeowners.
It’s that simple. Now couldn’t that be corrected by establishing a shareholder empowerment ethic? A statement of duties and obligations signed. and an oath of compliance sworn to by all candidates for office?
Shareholders should have the right to accept or reject measures affecting the value, affordability, security, terms of occupancy or encumbrance upon property mutually owned or held in trust, as well as any legal action against members/shareholders other than Small Claims Court action to collect delinquent carrying charges.
A group stands ready to implement such an ethic if the idea meets with shareholder approval. Let’s hear from you, pro or con.
Send any thoughts to P.O. Box 3344. I’m in the phone book.
Seal Beach Leisure World