CC&R Amendment
Many of you have probably seen some of the contentious Facebook posts, flyers dropped on selected doorsteps or even yelled out from a passing car about our upcoming CC&R amendment. Most of information passed out contain unsubstantiated evidence of fraud or even fabrications that are presented to cloud the real issues.
There is one big misstatement that continues to be propagated: The litigants agreed to drop the lawsuit before the CC&R amendment vote. The litigants did not say they would drop the lawsuit before the approval of the CC&R amendment. Ask anyone who says this for factual proof. The litigants did agree to drop the lawsuit if the amendment passes. Please read the information that came with your ballot for the amendment vote. It is factual and correct.
To address some of the concerns, Anne Smith posted a letter from the City on the Facebook Bridle Path Simi Valley page. We hope you find the information helpful.
In February, 2017 The HOA President, John Johnson sent a letter to the City Director of Environmental Services, Peter Lyons asking for clarification of landscape maintenance. This letter is posted in the Downloads section above as “Letter from BPHOA to City requesting clarification of City’s Fallback Assessment District and other issues regarding landscape maintenance”. The copy is somewhat murky but is what the City provided.
The City’s response about BPHOA responsibility can be found in the Downloads section as “Responses from the City regarding landscape maintenance”. This was sent to John Johnson, then Board President in response to his request for clarification. Once received, the Board tried to suppress it from inspection by owners. A copy of the letter from the City was obtained under the California Public Information Act and was distributed to all the homeowners in Bridle Path.
Here are some highlights from the letter:
- “The BPHOA is the responsible entity for maintaining landscaped areas within street rights-of-ways…and on portions of private properties…” (page 1)
- “Conditions of Approval require that the BPHOA maintain landscaped parkways and private slopes throughout the neighborhood in order to ensure …public landscape image, aesthetic value, and quality of life.” (Page 2)
- “The lack of provisions in the amended CCRs do not negate or supersede the association’s responsibility…” (Page 3). (This directly contradicts what Tony Delgado has stated.)
- “The BPHOA is responsible for maintenance…slopes on private residential properties along Mellow Lane, Rambling Road, Sunnydale Avenue, Azure Hills Drive, the east portion of Prance Court and the south portion of Gallop Court” (page 4).
2 Replies to “CC&R Amendment”
The main question for us is this: If the Amendment passes, but the litigants do not reach “a reasonable settlement”, then what? I would have been more comfortable with the letter stating that the lawsuit would be dropped when the Amendment passed. Whatever the settlement negotiations are, they should not be tied to the outcome of the vote. What happens if we pass the Amendment, but “a reasonable settlement” is not agreed to by all? That is the part that worries me. I would be in favor of the Amendment, but am worried about possible ramifications after the fact with the settlement discussions.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply to our blog.
The amendment you will be voting on would not have been possible without our expenditures for legal advice to make this event happen. We did not just sue Bridle Path. We have been actively involved in working on this amendment so it will make all of Bridle Path better. The settlement we are asking for is not for damages of any kind, we are simply asking to be reimbursed for our expenses.
“Reasonable” is a relative term and so is “generous”.
Someone on Facebook said the insurance company made a “generous” offer. In fact, the “generous” offer was for a small fraction of our out-of-pocket costs and legal fees. It is our understanding the insurance company has declined to revise their offer until after the election is held.
At the June 28 Town Hall meeting, Jeff Beaumont explained that the insurance company would very likely make a more “reasonable” offer once the amendment passes because it would be so much less expensive than going to trial. Unfortunately, our truthfulness is being used to imply we are greedy when we are not. Unlike the HOA, the litigants do not have an insurance policy limiting our costs to $25,000. We have spent a great deal more than that.
We truly hope you will vote YES for the amendment as we believe it is best for all of Bridle Path.
(updated 08-04-21)