|
LETTER TO MY NEIGHBORS The Estates at River Crossing Homeowners Association of Valrico |
|
October
14, 2004
George C. Gould Valrico, FL Dear Fellow Homeowners and Residents of
the Estates at River Crossing: I am writing this letter to provide you with news I think you need to know prior to attending the annual membership meeting on Tuesday, October 19, 2004. I apologize for having to be the bearer of bad news but on Sunday, October 17, 2004, the Tampa Tribune is scheduled to run an article that may very well have an adverse impact on property values in the Estates at River Crossing. I also regret to inform you that I am the one who invited this article to be written. The Tampa Tribune article is a new front in a war that has waged since almost the first day my family and I moved in. I didn’t start this war and I most certainly didn’t want this war. The Board of Directors of the Estates at River Crossing Homeowners’ Association, specifically Adam Roth, the president of the board, and Rick Pitrowski, a.k.a. Communities of America, Inc., the “community manager” started this war. Until now this has been a one-sided, one-front war with Roth and Pitrowski and their attorneys, Becker & Poliakoff, on the offensive. I have made every attempt to appease Roth and Pitrowski and to accommodate them but to no avail. Now they have crossed the line to where I have no choice but to fight back and seize the initiative. It is my sincerest regret that you will now be caught in the crossfire. As is often the case, this war is, on the surface, about very petty issues; but, as you will see, there are more serious principles that underlie the war. You see, in your name and mine, the Estates at River Crossing Homeowners’ Association (of which we are all members by virtue of living here) has brought a lawsuit against my wife and me. The lawsuit alleges that we don’t maintain our lawn and that we planted a flowerbed without prior permission, both of which are false. I’ve provided a full explanation of the suit and my response to it as an attachment to this letter for those who want to know the details. Pretty
petty, right? If the
allegations were true and were the summation of the whole story, I would agree
with you wholeheartedly and would plead guilty as charged. Case closed. War
over. But
guess what! You did know that
nothing is that simple, didn’t you? Adam Roth and Rick Pitrowski know the allegations are false. They know that they are already on thin ice when it comes to forcing compliance with the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R) because they selectively enforce them. They know that if they had filed this lawsuit a little over a week later, they would have been compelled by state law to petition for mediation. This lawsuit is about neither my lawn nor flowers nor the CC&R. My wife and I have expended considerable time, effort and money in improving the functionality and appearance of our property. After all, who has more incentive to maintain the property? We have a large capital investment in it. This is about power and the abuse
of power. This is about Adam Roth and Rick Pitrowski refusing to allow any
member to question, as I did, their selective enforcement of the CC&R (see
the discussion on basketball hoops in the endnotes) and the need for the home
owners of Estates at River Crossing, (we have only 179 homes), to pay $1,100 a
month (over 1/3 of the association’s budget) for a “professional”
community manager. Their response
to the second question was most instructive.
They said that we needed a manager to “hold the homeowners and
residents ACCOUNTABLE!” Since
when are the governed to be held accountable to and by the governors?
Somewhere along the line I must have missed something in my civics
classes. This is about a fence that is in
full compliance with the CC&R, but which Adam Roth doesn’t like for
“aesthetic” reasons of his own. In
an effort to be neighborly, we moved the fence once at Roth’s and
Pitrowski’s request at a cost of several hundred dollars to ourselves, but
that wasn’t good enough for Roth. This is about my asking who is the
treasurer of the association. It’s
not listed anywhere and the only person I saw discussing financial matters at a
board meeting was Pitrowski. Isn’t
it a conflict of interest, or at least give the appearance of impropriety, for a
person who is paid from the dues you and I pay to the association to be the one
holding the purse and keeping the financial records? This is about Pitrowski sitting in
a board meeting and bragging about a woman in the community having to pay $1,300
to find out she couldn’t keep a trash can with grass clippings outside her
garage. Ultimately,
lawsuits like this are about intimidation.
They single out, isolate, and attempt to intimidate homeowners who, when
they say jump, don’t ask, “how high?”
They think people lack either the resources or the will to fight back.
After all, they’re playing with our money.
We have to use our own. They’ve
done it to others and they thought they could do it to me. They were wrong. Ours is a civic-minded family. I was an infantryman in Vietnam and spent twenty-five years on active duty in the military as an enlisted man and commissioned officer. Kathy has worked extensively with the developmentally disabled. Our children are all college graduates or soon will be. One of our daughters is a teacher with the Hillsborough County School District; the other, an entrepreneur in Baltimore, Maryland. Our twin sons are seniors at the University of South Florida and are volunteer firefighters with Hillsborough County Fire and Rescue. As a retired military family we are well aware of rules and regulations. We question neither the existence nor the necessity of rules and regulations. We also know, however, that rules and regulations do not build communities. Communities are built upon trust and neighbors caring about the welfare of neighbors. Trust is built on the accountability of the governors to the governed. To have legitimacy, rules and regulations must be enforced fairly and consistently throughout the community. Those who are responsible for enforcing those rules and regulations have a duty to not use their offices for purposes of personal gain or the furtherance of personal agendas. They must religiously avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Neighbors caring about the welfare of neighbors? That is an idea that obviously has no currency with the Board of Directors or the community manager, who of course, is not a neighbor. Again, I am very sorry that it has all come to this. I appreciate you’re hearing me out. I thought that as a courtesy to you I should let you know what is coming down the pike. Like most of you, all we wanted was to enjoy our home and live our lives in peace but they wouldn’t let us do that. This is really not about our case or us. If it was, we would just defeat them in court, have our legal expenses reimbursed, and get on with life. This is about the people they will go after in the future who can’t fight back. I hope I’ve given you something to think about before you go into the annual membership meeting. Whether you agree or disagree with me, I’d be glad to discuss this with you. You can reach me by phone at 813-657-3158, e-mail me at [email protected], or just come by and knock on the door. Thank you. Sincerely, GEORGE C. GOULD DETAILS REGARDING
LAWSUIT The essence of the complaint is:
The
complaint states that absent injunctive relief, the association would “suffer
immediate and irreparable harm... and be estopped from compelling compliance by
other lot owners with the terms and conditions” of the CC&R. It
further requests the court to order the removal of the offending flowers and
resodding the area or to grant the association the right to take over
maintenance of our lawn, to charge us, to place a lien on our property, and to
award the association its costs and attorney fees. First
of all, both allegations are false: ·
We do maintain our lawn. We have
a lawn service that comes weekly and mows, trims and edges.
In the spirit of full disclosure, in three instances, (one week in April,
one week in May, and one week in August), my lawn service didn’t show up.
We’ve since changed lawn services and the problem has not recurred.
What the allegation doesn’t disclose is that in April 2003, when we
moved in, a large (approximately 15’ x 30’) swath of lawn in front of the
house was dead, indicating that the association hadn’t been enforcing the
provisions of the CC&R. After a
number of attempts at seeding, plugging and sodding, we restored all but a small
area (approximately 5’ x 10’) of the dead turf.
The final small area simply would not grow grass consistently.
We consulted with the Hillsborough County extension agent and several
landscapers who advised us to extend one of two flower beds we had already put
in (without complaint from the association) to cover the area.
This is what we did in August of this year. Again we heard no complaint about the flowerbed until we
received the lawsuit. ·
We were NOT required to seek permission for the flowerbeds, as
the complaint alleges. At an April meeting of the
Board of Directors of the association held at the home of Adam Roth, which I
attended with the purpose of trying to amicably settle the issue of the lawn and
to see how the association operates, I specifically asked Adam Roth, who is also
a member of the Architectural Control Committee, if we were required to seek
permission to plant flowers. He
responded that no we weren’t – we only needed to ask permission if we were
installing a permanent structure such as concrete curbing around the flowerbed. As
to the “immediate and irreparable harm” the association would suffer absent
injunctive relief because they would be “estopped from compelling compliance
by other lot owners with the terms and conditions” of the CC&R, they are
absolutely correct. But what they
don’t say is that they are, or should be, already estopped from compelling
compliance because they only selectively compel compliance with the terms and
conditions of the CC&R now. One
issue of selective compliance is the issue of portable basketball hoops.
Now, I have no problem with people having portable basketball hoops in
front of their house or anywhere on their property, but Article II, Section 8 of
the CC&R states “No basketball hoops, whether temporary or permanent,
including portable hoops, shall be installed on any Lot.”
A brief drive through of the community indicates the presence of
approximately 24 basketball hoops in front of homes, including the home of Adam
Roth, the president of the board. After
the annual membership meeting, the hoops may or may not be allowed (they
attempted to change Article II, Section 8 last year but failed to receive
sufficient votes). The point is
they are not allowed now and they haven’t been in the past, the board and
community manager know it and they have failed to compel compliance. The
third issue is the timing of the lawsuit. The
suit was filed September 23, 2004. On
October 1, the law changed. Florida
Statute 720.311(2)(a) requires that disputes over the enforcement of CC&R be
referred to mediation prior to the filing of a lawsuit.
I can’t believe that the board and their attorneys weren’t aware of
this. Contact:
George C. Gould |
| NEWS PAGE | HOME | HOA ARTICLES |