It was really bothersome that the board members behaved the way that they did at the previous meeting. In an effort to try to give them the benefit of the doubt, I reached out to them via email to have the conversation when emotions were not so high. Unfortunately, he results were not promising.
Hello,
I wanted to circle back on two things with the board members.
First, I think it is important to address the way my question was handled at the special meeting on Thursday. My intention in asking what I believed to be a valuable question was undermined when I was verbally attacked by Delwin.
Furthermore, another member's comment, which began with "this is shit," was acknowledged and considered without them being subjected to the aggression I experienced.
My husband, demonstrating remarkable composure amidst palpable irrationality, later attempted to steer the conversation towards mutual respect - an effort which was met with an escalating, and seemingly tangible, threat from Delwin. This would be inappropriate in any circumstance but more so coming from a board member during a meeting. It is disheartening that our family appears to persistently attract hostility from certain community members, and I believe an apology is in order.
Secondly, given the opportunity, I would have clarified that my suggestion was not advocating for "participation awards," as asserted by Delwin. "Positive reinforcement" may have been an inaccurate phrase, but HOA meetings cause me great anxiety because of how I've been attacked in the past, and I didn't do my best writing in the moment.
Consideration for people as humans is the whole point of having an HOA. My core message was to emphasize that people will act according to their own desires. It is my belief that our HOA should prioritize compassion and understanding towards members, ensuring that our processes are progressive and not solely punitive.
Whether erecting massive statues, as frequently suggested by Rich, or painting doors in rival team colors - no fine will be a true deterrent. Instead, those most affected by fines are not going to be the biggest transgressors; they will be the neighbor who is supporting a sick loved one and forgot to mow their grass for a month. It is built on the assumption that people are behaving a certain way strictly because the guidelines exist - something we already know to be false.
Our guidelines, in their current state, are a builder-centric, boilerplate, disjointed mess. My assertion was that we should alter/remove guidelines that don't actually affect the neighborhood negatively. By simplifying adherence to logical guidelines with minimal administrative hurdles, the likelihood of infractions may decrease, thereby also reducing the burden on the ARC due to fewer items for review.
Let's use the example from the meeting of ‘door color’.
I have yet to find research indicating that varied door colors devalue a neighborhood’s property value. Let’s hypothesize that abolishing the door color guideline results in doors being painted in numerous vibrant colors. At times, the argument is made that we are "all adults" when enforcing guidelines, but this rationale isn’t applied to trusting we can make aesthetically sound decisions for our properties. Our community might thrive more harmoniously by assuming the best of each other, rather than expecting the worst.
If we look at the door color guideline from an additional perspective; if everyone is painting their doors bright colors, maybe that's who we are as a community and maybe that's a unique, fun thing that we do. Or if it truly is one person who paints abstract art pieces on their door, how does that affect our community enough to spend time on the ‘violation’?
An additional case in point is the trampoline amendment.
Despite being technically prohibited, many trampolines were acquired during the pandemic. Rich pointed this out during multiple HOA meetings and yet more trampolines kept being installed. Logic would say that our community was indeed trampoline-friendly, contrary to our guidelines.
I personally believe the correct amendment would have entirely removed the mention of trampolines from the guidelines. The amendment that was submitted, and passed, added guidelines with ‘acceptable’ trampoline dimensions and required homeowners to still get ARC approval. If a homeowner is within the stated 'rules', what is the benefit of the required ARC review?
My experiences have left me deeply concerned about an emphasis on punitive measures within the HOA, which prompted my initial question at the special meeting. Having been personally impacted by unchecked and notably toxic behavior from community and board members, my apprehension is that intensifying the focus on penalizing non-compliance, instead of nurturing alignment and community spirit, may attract individuals who could steer our HOA towards an unhealthy and toxic environment - a scenario none of us desire.
I look forward to engaging in constructive dialogue in the future and fostering a more positive and united community.
The response was as follows:
Thank you for sharing your concerns. We have collected feedback from the community and have discussed each proposed change as a Board and reviewed with the community this past summer. As soon as we have documents to share with the community, we will do so.
... cool. :-/
