Sierra Canyon, Somersett, Villages, The Vue – Your Community Forum

Somersett UnitedPrevious posts on this website (September 17th and 24th) questioned if the SOA Board of Directors was fairly administering the “Equal Space” requirements of Nevada Law with regard to the proposed Country Club Purchase Agreement.  SU believes this question was answered in the September 24 article as NO, and their actions to date have amplified on this conclusion.

To summarize:

  •  The BOD was requested, by a homeowner group, to include an opposing viewpoint within the initial Ballot mailings, they refused
  •  Following the Ballot mailings, the BOD was asked again to disseminate an opposing viewpoint to all homeowners as required under Nevada Law. They refused this request citing what they perceived to be some inaccuracies in the submitted opposition statement.  These perceived “inaccuracies” were essentially insignificant and without merit for refusing to disseminate the opposition statement.  One could also question the “accuracy” of statements contained within the BOD publications, which the opposition statements addressed.  Apparently what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.
  •  Nevertheless, minor changes were made to the opposition statement, which was again submitted to the BOD for dissemination. Whereas the BOD subsequently agreed to disseminate, to date this has not yet been accomplished.

The BOD’s process states that opposition statements will be disseminated in a “reasonable time”. It has been a month since the Purchase Agreements were mailed out containing the BOD views, opinions and recommendation for approval, with no such mailings containing opposing views or opinions. Does this represent a “reasonable time” frame? We think not.

As previously stated, whether the agreement is Approved or Disapproved is not the issue here. As long as the voters have access to not only arguments for, but arguments against as well, and the voting process is fairly conducted, we can all live with its results.

In the interim, the Country Club has initiated a Door-to-Door campaign to encourage an Approval vote, which is their right to do so.  However, in the absence of the aforementioned opposition statements, voters are encouraged to not vote until you have received these and both sides have been reviewed and considered.  Then vote accordingly, but please do not abstain, as the BOD will just continue to extend the voting deadline as they did for the CC&R vote.

The actions undertaken by the current BOD in handling opposition statements, show a complete disregard for those who may differ with them.  Three BOD member terms (Fakonas, Lee and Chan) expire in November.  If they chose to run for re-election, one should consider their actions discussed above before voting to re-elect.  That is, do you want BOD members who will represent and consider all homeowner viewpoints, or just their own personal agenda?

Advertisements

Comments on: "Have You Received An Opposition Statement Yet?" (4)

  1. Joe Bower - Del Webb Owner & Member SOA said:

    Open Letter to Community Manager Lauren,

    I just received the letter dated September 30 regarding the distribution of opposing opinion.

    First of all, I’d like to suggest that future letters to unit owners from the Board be addressed:

    Dear Member Somersett Owners Association and not Dear Fellow Somersett Owner.

    The word “Somersett” tends to mean “Somersett Somersett” to the exclusion of Sierra Canyon, The Vue, and The Villages. Also, Board correspondence should be businesslike in nature and not folksy.

    Secondly, the statute NRS 116.3105 refers to “an official publication” which is defined as an official website; or an official newsletter; or OTHER SIMILAR PUBLICATION THAT IS CIRCULATED TO EACH UNIT’S OWNER; or an official bulletin board that is available to each unit’s owner.

    The enclosed letters should have been included WITH the ballot along with the board’s prejudiced and favorable Summary of the Proposed Agreement. That means before the ballot went out (or any future views or opinions of the board), the board needed to let all unit owners know that they were planning to put something out and that equal space would be made available to opposing views and opinions; and give the opposition time to submit what they would like to have included. After the fact does not meet the equal space and same terms and conditions requirements of the statute.

    The Board needs to acknowledge its error in not following NRS 116.31035 along with a pledge to do so in the future via a notice on the mysomersett website or in a Lauren Letter.

    All of this could have been avoided if the Board would simply follow the law in the first place rather than waiting for some owners to discover they haven’t.

    Thank you. JGB

  2. Yes, I received the material stating opposing views. It was dated Sept 30, 2014 and post-marked Oct 3, 2014. This apparent compliance with NRS116.31035 is one month overdue, given the BOD’s proposal and supporting views were sent in August.

    By the way, please note that the Somersett Golf Club also sent to all homeowners a green flyer urging support for the proposal. In this flyer, the Golf Club asserts in capital letters that our SOA assessments will not increase!!! Don’t be fooled, they have no control or authority over SOA’s financial matters ….. hmmm …. the purported explanation referred to past allocation, NOT a projection into future years.

    Vote “NO” and use the $2,75M bank loan for the general good of homeowners, NOT the private golf club. Besides, since the Golf Club is reported to be financially sound (due diligence?), let them borrow $2.75M from the banks to build their club house.

    • Joe Bower - Del Webb Owner and Member SOA said:

      I like it when we are told dues can’t go up $50-$70 without a vote of the owners. That is true. However! under Nevada law a HOA board can raise dues up to 20% per year on its own, i.e.without a vote of the owners. Won’t take long before “they” have the amount “they” want.

      • Green Grass of Home said:

        Hi Cato

        I guess that golfers (in Somersett) are much like farmers – they both like to have things growing green. Farmers depend on generous government welfare – they often get our “green” for not growing anything at all. Now the California farmers have no more water – they will be given even more “green”.

        Private golfers in Somersett want our “green” – with no guarantees to us that they will keep the course green!

        There is nothing to stop them pocketing our “green” and leaving us all with heavy mowing duties – to keep it green as a public course.

        if they want a private exclusive club, the equity members should dig the “green” out of their pockets so they can build and play… but please not with our money. If they dont want to dig into their own pockets for more “green” they should go public. Without our money they will have to be creative in raising the “green” needed to keep it green – what other option will they have?

        Vote NO and keep our “green” for our own future needs….

        Green Grass of Home

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: