The following is a posting from one of the Uplanders who prefers to remain anonymous:
Is it necessary?
Could we revisit the Board decision to replace the aesthetically
natural looking 'stop' signs with familiar, but unattractive red STOP
signs?
The amount of traffic that passes through Ventana/Verona and
Ventana/Uplands is far less than any intersection of public streets. Is
the same red stop sign really necessary?
Something novel like the original pleasing 'stop' signs with the addition of a removable message such as:
'Thank you [for stopping]'......'stop'
'Please'......'stop'
'For safety, please'.......'stop'
The additional removable/positive message could be changed from time
to time; it would get drivers' attention and also make them feel good.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Community Values
OK. I confess. I am confused. I'm not even sure where to start, but I've edited this edition to minimize my rambling as I search for some answers.
What agreements in our governing documents do you want enforced? Some want parking enforced, some don't. Some want light restrictions enforced, some don't. Some want to eliminate the skateboarding, some don't. Then there are the colored lights, unregistered cars parking in our area, dogs off-leash, dogs barking, subletting of homes, landscape maintenance, noisy vehicles, structures being erected or houses being painted without approval from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC), spraying of herbicides in the preserve, parking to block the sidewalk, loud music, and the killing of hole-burrowing animals. When do you want your Board of Directors to enforce the current rules applicable in those situations? I am confused when some Owners want one part of the CC&Rs enforced while at the same time they violate another part of the CC&Rs.
I was fortunate enough to attend a seminar series once about situations where people are pulling in different directions. The bottom line was that these "multi-directional" situations tend lack a common set of values. Diversity is wonderful; introducing new concepts and approaches that can help a society grow. But diversity has its risks when underlying values are not maintained. I learned it is the core set of values that hold a community or even a nation together. Laws, rules, regulations, etc. merely try to hold behaviors within that set of values.
Some of those wanting a particular rule enforced appear to be concerned about how laxity in one rule is a slippery slope that will erode the value of our neighborhood. They are concerned about holding the community together consistent to what they saw when they bought into the neighborhood. Most have an image of the neighborhood they want to maintain as being uncluttered, with a "memorable identity and image". (Reference is to the Uplands at Seascape Design Guidelines, January 2011.) In general, this set of Owners tend to be consistent in their application of rules. I can't think of a situation where the community thinkers want one rule enforced while another is ignored.
Other Owners want a rule enforced because they simply don't like something. They consider it an eyesore or a nuisance of some sort. There is nothing wrong with expecting that the nuisance clause of the CC&Rs be applied in their situation or for their protection. It is just different than thinking about the community as a whole. Unfortunately, I have observed that people focused on personal values can be very selective in what they want enforced and what they don't want enforced, particularly when it comes to their own behavior.
In my opinion, both of those types of interests (community and personal) should be protected by a written set of requirements. Common interests are used to establish community rules through which personal interests are granted and protected. People need to know what they can expect, particularly when they are paying for an HOA. The problem is situations change and rules periodically need to be adjusted if they are to continue to reflect an evolving community. How much the rules change has to be determined by the values the community wishes to protect.
For instance let's take parking as an example. There are some Owners who went to considerable expense to build larger garages because they foresaw they had multiple cars to park. I'm told others actually sold cars so they could comply with the "parking in the garage" rule. That's great. Those are definitely community thinkers, sacrificing money or property in the name of supporting community rules. But there are also others whose situations have changed because now they have more cars than they ever envisioned. Maybe they have a teenager who has a car that won't fit into their garage. They are no less community thinkers, yet we don't have a provision for their extra vehicles in our current CC&Rs. Other homes have such long driveways, or their driveways are screened such that you really can't see their cars unless you are directly across from that driveway. Are they in the same category as the driveway where extra cars are visibly parked at an angle at night and on the street every day? I don't think so. I contend that when Owners who have made an effort to keep their cars out of eyesight are no less community thinkers than those who have kept their cars out of sight in their garage.
I shouldn't even try to go into the situation where cars cannot be parked in garages because the owners have chosen to do something else with their garage space, even though it is a violation of the current CC&Rs. But I need to think of such things because I am on the Board, and those situations need to be considered as well. I strongly believe every Owners has a right to be heard and their interests expressed. They are part of the community too. Since this is an unofficial blog, I will confess that I honestly don't care why cars are parked in the driveway. It doesn't bother me at all, as long as cars are parked neatly in the driveway (e.g. in a line or two, not blocking the sidewalks and certainly not parked at angles or on the lawn.) What I simply want to see are a set of rules that are that we agree to live by, even if it isn't always what we would like. I'd like people to get beyond their personal interests and think of the community, regardless of where they stand on the parking issue. If you could live with driveway parking if violations were more regularly enforced or some other restrictions were applied, then perhaps you can consider accepting driveway parking. Likewise with other rules or changes you may not like. Let us know!
Now is the time to get involved. Now is the time to speak up and let your Board of Directors know how you feel about the various rules. Don't rely on someone else because one voice is not as loud as many sharing the same message. Also ask yourself if you want to be ruled by the one or two people who speak up if what they say doesn't truly reflect our community? I don't. But we can only take this opportunity to change the CC&Rs to accommodate our community values if we know what you actually value. Please, take a moment and think about what will continue to bind us together as a special community where we not only think of ourselves, but of our neighbors and their situations.
As always, please feel free to reply to this blog. While not official, it does provide an opportunity for our community to hear your thoughts. If you are uncomfortable speaking up, consider sending a response to me and I will post it anonymously. Whether we agree or disagree with one another, it is important to me that you be heard.
What agreements in our governing documents do you want enforced? Some want parking enforced, some don't. Some want light restrictions enforced, some don't. Some want to eliminate the skateboarding, some don't. Then there are the colored lights, unregistered cars parking in our area, dogs off-leash, dogs barking, subletting of homes, landscape maintenance, noisy vehicles, structures being erected or houses being painted without approval from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC), spraying of herbicides in the preserve, parking to block the sidewalk, loud music, and the killing of hole-burrowing animals. When do you want your Board of Directors to enforce the current rules applicable in those situations? I am confused when some Owners want one part of the CC&Rs enforced while at the same time they violate another part of the CC&Rs.
I was fortunate enough to attend a seminar series once about situations where people are pulling in different directions. The bottom line was that these "multi-directional" situations tend lack a common set of values. Diversity is wonderful; introducing new concepts and approaches that can help a society grow. But diversity has its risks when underlying values are not maintained. I learned it is the core set of values that hold a community or even a nation together. Laws, rules, regulations, etc. merely try to hold behaviors within that set of values.
Some of those wanting a particular rule enforced appear to be concerned about how laxity in one rule is a slippery slope that will erode the value of our neighborhood. They are concerned about holding the community together consistent to what they saw when they bought into the neighborhood. Most have an image of the neighborhood they want to maintain as being uncluttered, with a "memorable identity and image". (Reference is to the Uplands at Seascape Design Guidelines, January 2011.) In general, this set of Owners tend to be consistent in their application of rules. I can't think of a situation where the community thinkers want one rule enforced while another is ignored.
Other Owners want a rule enforced because they simply don't like something. They consider it an eyesore or a nuisance of some sort. There is nothing wrong with expecting that the nuisance clause of the CC&Rs be applied in their situation or for their protection. It is just different than thinking about the community as a whole. Unfortunately, I have observed that people focused on personal values can be very selective in what they want enforced and what they don't want enforced, particularly when it comes to their own behavior.
In my opinion, both of those types of interests (community and personal) should be protected by a written set of requirements. Common interests are used to establish community rules through which personal interests are granted and protected. People need to know what they can expect, particularly when they are paying for an HOA. The problem is situations change and rules periodically need to be adjusted if they are to continue to reflect an evolving community. How much the rules change has to be determined by the values the community wishes to protect.
For instance let's take parking as an example. There are some Owners who went to considerable expense to build larger garages because they foresaw they had multiple cars to park. I'm told others actually sold cars so they could comply with the "parking in the garage" rule. That's great. Those are definitely community thinkers, sacrificing money or property in the name of supporting community rules. But there are also others whose situations have changed because now they have more cars than they ever envisioned. Maybe they have a teenager who has a car that won't fit into their garage. They are no less community thinkers, yet we don't have a provision for their extra vehicles in our current CC&Rs. Other homes have such long driveways, or their driveways are screened such that you really can't see their cars unless you are directly across from that driveway. Are they in the same category as the driveway where extra cars are visibly parked at an angle at night and on the street every day? I don't think so. I contend that when Owners who have made an effort to keep their cars out of eyesight are no less community thinkers than those who have kept their cars out of sight in their garage.
I shouldn't even try to go into the situation where cars cannot be parked in garages because the owners have chosen to do something else with their garage space, even though it is a violation of the current CC&Rs. But I need to think of such things because I am on the Board, and those situations need to be considered as well. I strongly believe every Owners has a right to be heard and their interests expressed. They are part of the community too. Since this is an unofficial blog, I will confess that I honestly don't care why cars are parked in the driveway. It doesn't bother me at all, as long as cars are parked neatly in the driveway (e.g. in a line or two, not blocking the sidewalks and certainly not parked at angles or on the lawn.) What I simply want to see are a set of rules that are that we agree to live by, even if it isn't always what we would like. I'd like people to get beyond their personal interests and think of the community, regardless of where they stand on the parking issue. If you could live with driveway parking if violations were more regularly enforced or some other restrictions were applied, then perhaps you can consider accepting driveway parking. Likewise with other rules or changes you may not like. Let us know!
Now is the time to get involved. Now is the time to speak up and let your Board of Directors know how you feel about the various rules. Don't rely on someone else because one voice is not as loud as many sharing the same message. Also ask yourself if you want to be ruled by the one or two people who speak up if what they say doesn't truly reflect our community? I don't. But we can only take this opportunity to change the CC&Rs to accommodate our community values if we know what you actually value. Please, take a moment and think about what will continue to bind us together as a special community where we not only think of ourselves, but of our neighbors and their situations.
As always, please feel free to reply to this blog. While not official, it does provide an opportunity for our community to hear your thoughts. If you are uncomfortable speaking up, consider sending a response to me and I will post it anonymously. Whether we agree or disagree with one another, it is important to me that you be heard.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)