A Presentation of a Concerned Citizen to the HOA Executive Committee
These are certainly interesting times in the Plantation Community. Several days ago, we were informed that a neighbor who is an attorney was asked by several HOA Board members to outline his personal opinion about the status of the “interpleaders’” request for Declaratory Judgement which will be before Judge Medema in The Idaho 4th District Court. This person is not an interpleader but is a member of the Plantation Community.
The outline below was presented against the background that the Garden City HOA Board refused to meet with neighbors after being invited last week to a “local” at the end of Fair Oaks Place. There were also several letters to HOA Board members asking them to represent our interest at the P&Z meeting. We have received no response from them except for one communication from their attorney to our attorney on May 7th stating that the HOA Board had not had time to take up the issue. We believe that it is the job of The Board to at least be informed of the issue and the tainted process that has occurred pursuant to the P&Z meeting.
We believe every Board Member has a fiduciary duty to every homeowner and property owner----not just a few:
To have read and understand The Master Declaration Contract and The Plantation CC&R’s.
To have read and understand Judge Medema’s decision allowing the interpleaders to move forward with our case.
To have read and understand the issues with the Brighton Application----even if they take a neutral position on the issue.
Below is the outline of our neighbor’s notes as presented to several members of the HOA Board last week in a 45-minute phone conference call. We are now releasing this information, because we understand the call and its’ contents have been shared with individuals who are not part of the Board.
I have read the opinion. It is well written, clearly correct in its analysis, and it will stand up in the event of any appeal.
THE OPINION CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY POINTS IN THE DIRECTION OF A JUDICIAL DECLARATION THAT THE GOLF COURSE IS INDEED SUBJECT TO THE COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS.
WE COULD GET A RULING TO THIS EFFECT VERY SOON EXCEPT FOR THE STALLING TACTICS OF THE DEFENDANTS’ LAWYERS.
Whoever it is now who owns the golf course, or the applicable portions of it, is now trying to get permission to reconfigure the first portion of the approved subdivision, and the P&Z hearing is set for this week.
A. They DID NOT SEEK APPROVAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE BEFORE TRYING TO CHANGE THEIR PLANS
IN FACT, THEY HAVE NEVER SOUGHT APPROVAL OF THE ACC FOR ANY PART OF THE 720 UNIT DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WOULD EAT UP A PORTION OF THE GOLF COURSE AND IT IS THEREFORE, IN ITS ENTIRETY, SUBJECT TO BEING DENIED.
Brighton, whoever that might be, and whatever interest it or they might have, is pushing to get approval from the city before Judge Medema is in a position to MAKE AND ENTER A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. PLAINLY THIS IS BECAUSE THEY CAN UNDERSTAND THE PLAIN IMPLICATIONS OF HIS RULING AS WELL AS I CAN.
THEIR OWN LAWYERS KNOW AND HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN THAT THE GOLF COURSE IS IN FACT SUBJECT TO THE COVENANTS.
A. IN FACT, THE COVENANTS ARE LISTED AS AN EXCEPTION IN THE TITLE POLICY
AS SPOKESPERSONS FOR ALL WHO LIVE IN THE PLANTATION, YOU SHOULD NOT BE TURNING A BLIND EYE TO THE OBVIOUS, AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN BY THE LAWYERS WHO INDEED KNOW THAT THE GOLF COURSE IS COVERED BY COVENANTS, BUT ARE MISLEADING YOU WITH FALSE INFORMATION AND UNSUPPORTABLE CONCLUSIONS.
THIS IS THE PERFECT TIME FOR THE HOA, ACTING THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, TO ACT STRONGLY, DECISIVELY AND IN THE INTERESTS OF THE APPROXIMATELY 250 HOMEOWNERS IN THE PLANTATION.
I HAVE HEARD THE CLAIMS THAT A SURVEY WAS DONE AND ABOUT 80% OF THE SURVEY RESPONSES FAVORED ALLOWING GUSTAVASON TO DO WHAT HE WANTED WITH THE RIVER CLUB. HOWEVER THERE IS A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SAYING THAT HE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO SEEK HOA AND ACC APPROVAL BEFORE PUTTING A ROOF OVER A PICKLEBALL COURT OR MAKING A PRACTICE GREEN BY THE CLUB, AND ALLOWING A BIG PART OF THE GOLF COURSE TO BE EATEN UP BY A 720 UNIT SUBDIVISION. IF A FAIRLY AND PROPERLY WORDED SURVEY WERE TO BE GIVEN TO ALL OF THE HOMEOWNERS – SO THAT THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE OWNERS OF THE GOLF COURSE NEEDED HOA AND ACC APPROVAL BEFORE CONVERTING ANY PART OF THE COURSE INTO HOUSING, I THINK THERE WOULD BE A VERY DIFFERENT RESULT.
HOMEOWNERS NEED TO KNOW THAT IF THEY GET AWAY WITH THIS SUBDIVISION, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO CREATE NEW PLANS TO MONETIZE ADDITIONAL PARTS OF THE GOLF COURSE. IN PART TO COVER THE HUGE JUDGMENT THAT WILL GUSTAFSON HAS AGAINST HIM IN A CASE ALSO BEFORE JUDGE MEDEMA. IT ORIGINATED AND WAS OBTAINED IN CALIFORNIA MANY YEARS AGO, AND HAS BEEN BEARING INTEREST FOR MANY YEARS, SO IT IS NOW WELL IN EXCESS OF THE ORIGINAL $250k.
BY NOT ACTING REGARDING SUBDIVISION, BOARD IS GUARANTEEING THAT IT WILL BE DRAWN INTO LITIGATION WHICH IS MUCH MORE INVOLVED THAN A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION.