A Response to Plantation 1917
Written by Dr. John Livingston.
The big push by Plantation 1917 aka Save Plantation and the public and recorded private statements of agents acting on behalf of the ownership group are evidence of a group of people who are uncertain of their position—legally and politically.
The new push has two goals, and the battle will be fought on two fronts:
To control the narrative in the neighborhood.
To decrease the legitimacy of the HOA Board and the AECC. They may even push to overthrow the current board. So, what. The duties and responsibilities of the parties to each other—landowners and the HOA, are legal and are not political.
Our argument should be simple:
The Master Declaration is a contract to which landowners and the HOA are participants with duties and responsibilities to each other. Those duties and responsibilities are not subject to a vote. The HOA is charged with discharging the duties of enforcing the rules—the CC&Rs that all parties have agreed upon up front.
There are three questions that the ownership group has not answered.
Does the MDC apply to the owner of the golf course?
Does the golf course fall within the legal description of the MDC?
Who is the owner of the golf course?
If the answer to those questions is understood by everyone, then the owner of the golf course should be made to understand that they would be in breach of contract if they didn’t comply with the rules that they had previously agreed to.
The HOA would be in breach of contract if they didn’t execute their responsibilities of enforcing their own MDC and CC&Rs.
That doesn’t mean that the HOA would refuse to let anything be built on the property. It only means we have the right of review via the AECC.
In the end, having the ability to execute the HOA’s authority regarding the MDC will allow the landowners (neighbors) to determine the future of the golf course and not just the owner of the golf course who may or may not be in the future the current ownership group. Remember ownership can change many times, and in the end some hedge fund in Singapore could determine what happens to our property, where home prices will go up and down depending on what is built out. Homeowners, not some distant out of State or Foreign (Canadian) Finance Company or retirement fund—Lincoln National for example—should have ultimate say about quality-of-life issues for 257 families and landowners.
Those supporting the representative of the ownership group, fail to recognize the implications of having a distant owner who is not accountable to the neighbors.
For those who feel the MDC should not be deployed, then maybe we should just do away with the HOA. For a look at what a weakened HOA looks like go to Eagle Hills and look at the properties surrounding the golf course and see how the neighborhood has deteriorated. Then go to River Birch Golf Course also in Eagle and look at what a strong HOA can accomplish.
All parties to the MDC need to fulfill their responsibilities to each other and their obligations as strictly defined in the Plantation MDC and CC&Rs.
If all the parties are secure in their positions, then they should all agree to a Judicial Declarative Review of The Master Declaration Contract and CC&Rs. They should all agree up front to agree with the decision of the Judge doing the review.
Recent District Court Rulings in Idaho have signaled the importance of the HOA and AECC being involved in the process that involves any land division, SAP, or rezoning of properties under their purview and jurisdictions.
Only we can secure the future of the golf course, not some distant owner.
Our signed review of Ms. Bones analysis will be included on our next post: A Response to the Opposing Legal Opinion.