To the
authors and the "previous" SC who sent out this "reply"
I must point out the clear untruths and lay out the facts of the January
12, 2015 election. I have no problem signing my name and giving background and
knowledge of the issues raised in the their "Initial Reply to Paz
Moreno" below.
I have
lived in Valle Escondido for over five years and have invested more than
$800,000 in properties in this development. I currently am the legal representative
of numerous corporations that own properties in Valle Escondido with full
membership and voting rights as verified by the Public Registry. My points
listed in RED after each of the numbered issues
raised below are based upon extensive review of the facts and consultation of
no less than 4 different Panamanian attorneys in regards to the legality of the
January 12th election. The question I need to ask is if the
"authors" of this are going to truthfully address the points I bring
up or will they deflect with attacks and deflections?
Your
mixed messages as a group are completely hypocritical as I will point out in
this email; Your own SC Chairman called you illegal ( see below). So what is
it, you cannot have it both ways. Your own SC Chairman called all of you
unflattering names ( see below) Your own SC Chairman called for an
"Emergency Election " because you were illegal (see below), We had
one. Your call as to defining who is a homeowner via POA etc.(see below), by
your own definition, validates that your "appointments" by your own
words were completely illegal. Please once and for all get your stories
straight as one and tell the community by law not emotions what legal grounds
you stand on. We are proceeding as a community without your further
dysfunction and disruptions. Surely you must see how embarrassing you look
collectively to our VEHOA membership. It is now time to stop!
Support this legally elected Board of Directors working with the “elected
SC” for the best interests of all property owners, the continued noise you
offer has very very little support in Valle Escondido.
If you
feel that your legal challenges has merit then file a suit accordingly but stop
lying to the VEHOA community that there is some kind court ruling forthcoming
that will invalidate the January 12 election results. If you objectively look at the facts I present
in RED, the VEHOA membership will quickly realize
that it is the “authors” of this reply that have acted “illegally” and until
they are willing to address each and every point made in RED they just need to accept that the VEHOA membership
has spoken.
I have
the right to speak out for the truth as I have been the primary target of your
lies, falsehoods and deceptions.
Ralf
Henrich
MY Replies
are in RED!
Initial
Reply to Paz Moreno
Lic. Paz
Moreno Notification to some Home Owners of Valle Escondido/Notificacion a
Residente de VE. (March 2nd, 2015)
Dear Lic. Paz
Moreno,
We will send a more
formal reply but let me correct some assumptions in your letter sent 02 de
marzo 2015.
The alleged
"election" held 12 enero 2015 failed to consider the following:
1. As
Lic Julio Brown can confirm to you the Valle Escondido Asociation de
Propietarios (VEHOA) General Assembly and election for a new VEHOA
Board of Directors was held in mayo 2014. Many more homeowners
voted in this election than in the 12 enero 2015 election and a new VEHOA Board
of Directors was elected to serve our community. Each of these new BOD
members have two (2) year terms that expire in mayo of 2016. That means
their terms continue for another year. The May 10, 2014 election/vote
was not valid as insufficient notice was given of the meeting (per both Deed
1937 & the 2010 CC&R's) and insufficient delivery of the supporting
documents was provided. Furthermore, advance notice was provided in writing to
SC of same & they proceeded with the meeting regardless. At least one attorney
present at the meeting notified the SC that it was conducting an illegal
meeting according to Panamanian law. also Deed 1937, the only valid governing
document, as per MINGOB, clearly states that a board of directors must be
elected by 51% of the entire VEHOA membership which for the May elections would
have been 76 votes in the affirmative which was not met.
2.
We
have had two resignations from this VEHOA BOD. According to the 1937
Deed, the By-laws for the VEHOA created by deceased Developer Samuel
Taliaferro, the remaining Board of Directors members would vote on the
replacements for their Board, not the VEHOA. Please read the 1937
Deed. Your position appears to totally disregard the stipulations in this
document. See above as to why your
May election failed to properly elect the BOD you reference. Please also
explain how Antonio Palacios , Olga's "husband" and Richard Charbit's
employee, got on the BODs as he was never elected in the May election nor was
he ever on the ballot. Also, why did the SC chairman at the time write: “With no Board of Directors, as we only have 2 active members and 1
will resign soon, and no valid SC I am calling an Emergency Homeowners Election.” (a
full copy of the blog post this was taken from is below). Are you calling
Richard Charbit a liar? Once Javier Espinosa, the President of the VEHOA, as per the public registry, was informed that MINGOB ruled the SC concept
invalid, he did the proper and legal thing based upon the VEHOA's lawyer's
advice of calling for a new BOD election, which met all the legal requirements,
so he could subsequently resign.
3. Furthermore, the
"election" held 12 enero 2015 failed to consider that there were two
terms on the VEHOA Steering Committee that do not expire until 31 marzo 2016.The
people who were "elected" were not designated as to which terms they
would be serving: i.e., one or two years. Once again, MINGOB ruled, in a
notarized Government resolution,that the 2010 CC&Rs, the document that
"created" the SC concept was never submitted to them which is in
direct violation of Deed 1937. VEHOA can only legally operate under Deed 1937.
On top of that, even if the SC concept was legally recognized you refuse to
accept the fact the none of the existing members are in any way legal based
upon the 2010CC&Rs you still claim, contrary to a Panamanian Government
Agency ruling, as the governing document. Here are the facts of the SC you
claim is legal and please address these facts once and for all. This was taken
from the VEneighbors blog:
We wish the past contentiousness
was over and that the community could move forward together. However, we must
pose a few important legal points and questions to them and request, for once
and for all, an answer to the entire community. Honest answers will provide
clarity as to the illegality of the previous SC.
-Carol Bruner,
self-appointed President of the previous SC, who has not stepped foot in VE for
well over a year, has admitted that she was appointed to an SC position where
the person she replaced (Michael Burd) never resigned, nor was any resignation
for that person ever accepted. By their own rules, you can only be appointed to
that position if the resigning member votes with the majority for his/her
replacement. Michael Burd never knew anything about Ms. Bruner's appointment to
replace him and has signed an affidavit to these facts.
-Mary Jean
"Jeanie" Bell has resigned on three separate occasions, with a copy
of her most recent resignation available for all to view in an earlier blog
post. Once you resign, you cannot just come back as you wish. There is a
process and that process did not take place. Also note, that Ms. Bell has her
property for sale and had indicated in emails that she wants out of VE as
quickly as possible.
-There is the
appointment of Pat Mains where the previous SC admits in writing that they took
the vote of an SC member's spouse because they were "trying something
new." They also admitted using the vote of Michael Traynor as an alternate
to elect Pat Mains. The use of an alternate, or a spouse, is not contained in
any of the CC&Rs, whether it be Deed 1937 or the 2010 document.
-Then there is
the appointment of Larry Thompson. This same SC determined that Larry was not
an HOA member and was not eligible to vote on VE issues because his condo is
not titled. If you are not a member, how can you be a representative on the SC?
4. The people who were
"elected" were not designated as to which terms they would be
serving: i.e., one or two years. The Board of Directors elected are serving their terms as per Deed
1937 and the "new SC members" are serving informally with the
approval of the BODs until such a time that the 2010 CC&Rs, with the
amendments, as approved by MINGOB as required under Panamanian law is appeoved. All legal decisions for
the VEHOA are only valid with the approval of the elected BODs. Once the SC
concept is approved, the terms for SC members,as designated in the proposed new
CC&Rs, will be announced to the VEHOA membership.
5. The Steering Committee has a
legitimate claim that the VE Neighbors and Lic. Julio Brown who orchestrated
the 12 enero 2015 "election" selectively disenfranchised many
property owners in Valle Escondido. Many of us were not notified about
all of the aspects of the purported "election." We were not
included in their mailing list. That is fact.
Julio Espinosa
Brown has already provided evidence that proper notification went to all
homeowners as per the VEHOA email list he had from when he was hired. On top of
that he, as well as numerous individual VEHOA members, requested that the
"old SC" in power and in control of the VEHOA email account anf the
VEHOA.com website make proper notification and you refused. The "authors
of this "reply" actually did everything they could to prevent
notification. Here is a sampling of Blog Posts on our VEHOA.com community
website which made notification of the elections and were "REMOVED BY YOUR STEERING
COMMITTEE", now these same individuals are trying to
claim now that property owners were disenfranchised by the actions of others?
Really?
REMOVED BY YOUR STEERING COMMITTEE DUE TO FALSE AND MISLEADING
INFORMATION
REMOVED BY YOUR STEERING COMMITTEE DUE TO FALSE AND MISLEADING
INFORMATION
REMOVED BY YOUR STEERING COMMITTEE DUE TO FALSE AND MISLEADING
INFORMATION
6. Note
well that several of these excluded, disenfranchised property owners are
owners of multiple properties, thus disenfranchised multiple times. (por
ejemplo, 10 votas para 4 propietarios). See above. Also know that the "YES" vote for the CC&R
changes and the Board of Directors was 59 legal members which is higher than
the "YES" vote for the BODs at the May election you reference.
7. Furthermore,
this was the first time that property owners were asked to provide, on very
short notice, a notarized proof of title to their homes or a notarized
Power of Attorney from their corporation or foundation enabling them to vote on
behalf of their property or properties. This has never been required in
previous VEHOA elections. This was a serious disservice to absentee
property owners and effectively disenfranchised them from voting in this 12
enero 2015 "election. This should have
been a requirement all along and through this process, in which VEHOA members
were verified by the election inspectors through the Public Registry, is was discovered
that people who had previously voted in the May election were not legally
affiliated with the properties they claimed to represent. It was actually the
"old SC" that previously announced that all votes, after the budget
vote would require, verification of membership. Now you same people have the
gall to say that this was never required when you yourselves made it mandatory?
Here is the VEHOA notification with some excerpts taken from it:
What defines you as an Owner of Property in Valle Escondido,
Powers of Attorney, Proxy Forms, Good Standing Letters... To Vote
you will need 1) Unlimited or General Power of Attorney by the Legal
Representative of the Corporation assigning the majority shareholder or an
individual unlimited powers over the property and decision making. PROXY FORMS NEED TO BE ISSUED AND SIGNED
BY THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CORPORATION, NOTARIZED BY A PANAMANIAN
NOTARY IF THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY A PANAMA CORPORATION OTHERWISE THEY WILL NOT
BE ACCEPTED. Please understand that
this is not a matter of politics. This is a matter of knowing the rightful
owners of the properties so that communication is effective between the VEHOA
and the membership, voting rights are exercised, dues are correctly billed and
allocated and better safety and security is applied to all just by knowing who
your neighbors are.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Steering Committee and
Board of Directors
VEHOA
8. In
previous VEHOA General Assemblies held in 2013 and 2014, the Steering Committee
has enabled Skype connections so that absentee property owners could attend the
General Assemblies. Deed 1937 is explicit that voting must be in person or via proxy.
Skype is not a requirement to having a legal meeting or vote.
This was not
provided for the 10 and 12 enero General Assembly meetings and effectively
prevented many of our VEHOA members from participating in those two
meetings. We know that the Bambu Room has the capability to set up Skype
connections as we have arranged that several times before. The January 10 & 12 GA meetings/election were called by the
VEHOA President, Javier Espinosa, who followed the legal meeting requirements
as recommended by the VEHOA attorney. Skype attendance would not have met the
legal requirements of verifying a quorum and voting as one needed to provide
legal proof of membership as mandated by the "Old SC".
9. Why
are you, as a licensed attorney not concerned about these facts?
Do you believe in the democratic process? Or is democracy in
Panama limited? Democratic process? The full membership was invited to attended a
meeting and election in which the "old SC" was ask to participate in
and run for election on numerous occasions yet all you did was obstruct and
deny notification. What is more democratic than getting elected by the
membership one claims to represent, especially in light of the fact that none
of the members of the "old SC" were ever elected as demonstrated
above. Why if you felt/feel that the VEHOA membership supports you platforms
and actions did you just not run your own slate of candidates. Why are there still
only 4 "old SC" members? Why was Dennis Griffin turned down for a
position on the SC after Bill Day interviewed him yet one position still
remained open?
10.Valle
Escondido contains many citizens of the United States, Canada, and
England. We revere our right to vote. We respect the rule of
law. And we will stand up for our rights to vote in legitimately called
VEHOA General Assemblies. The January 10 & 12 GA meetings/election were
legitimately called. As stated earlier no less than 4 Panamanian attorneys,
including Juan David the attorney Bill Day and Paul McBride hired, that any
member of the VEHOA membership can call a meeting. This meeting and election
was called by Javier Espinosa, the legal President of the VEHOA BODs in light
of the fact that MINGOB issued a resolution which clearly demonstrated that
under Panamanian law the VEHOA's 2010 CC&Rs were never submitted and
approved leaving us under deed 1937.
11.I do not
find an attachment re: Parks with your email.
12.Our VEHOA
Steering Committee and VEHOA Board of Directors understand that the Garanty
Tadasly Trust must be nullified, dissolved, revoked, in order to achieve the
transfer of the VEHOA infrastructure assets. What steps have you taken to
accomplish this goal? We understand that you as the Promotora
cannot transfer the Valle Escondido infrstructure assets that are vested into a
trust instrument
13.
I am forwarding your letter under
blind copy to many homeowners who appear to not be included on your
mailing list. Who is I?
Regards,
VEHOA Steering
Committee
Bell
Bruner
Mains
Thompson
BELOW ARE BLOG POSTS FROM THE SC CHAIRMAN IN REGARDS TO THE “OLD SC”
(Title edited by John Good, WebMaster)
Julio Espinosa was
hired by a unanimous vote of my SC. His contract calls for a retainer of
$850.00 a month for 17 hours and $50.00 an hour after that plus unlimited
emails and phone calls and his presence at 2 meetings.
The contract was
approved at the time by al least a majority of SC members. It was in
replacement of Juan David Barcenas which charged us over $10000.00 for the
first quarter of 2014. The Agreement with JDB had been negotiated by Rod Parker
and Carol Bruner and called for a retainer of $2000.00 a month for a few hours
a month plus $175.00 an hour for the extra hours plus reimbursement of all
traveling expenses every time he flew to Boquete.
Julio’s $4000.00
bill that included 2 overdue invoices for $1000.00 each for the months of
August and june 2014 and the current invoice for $2000.00 for October. These
invoices were approved by 3 members of the SC including me.
The so-called SC composed of only 1 legitimate member
only (unable to fulfill her function) has made some very bad decisions:
-Taking the funds
out of the VEHOA bank account, for some stupid reasons, and putting those funds
in their personal lawyer’s account.
-Pretending to be capable to run the SC without the
presence in country of any legitimate member.
-Delegating power
to accept and approve payment on all bills by Bill Day (not a member or
official adviser of the SC).
-Allowing Mike Traynor to run the legal side of the
Association without a Panamanian law license.
The list goes on
and on….
Richard Charbit
78/105/147
Steering
Committee Coup The Steering Committee is trying to screw the VEHOA by
following Bill Day´s private agenda once again!
This Saturday I was
asked to resign by Jeannie Bell and Carol Bruner stating I am unable to perform
my duties due to fact I am not in the Panama. I refuse to resign as we are in
the midst of negotiations and the dissidents of the SC which comprise of Carol
Brunner and Jeannie Bell met at Bill Day's house illegally and voted Pat Mains
in the SC, they are conspiring to fire Julio Espinosa which will cost the VEHOA
money since he has a 2 years contracts and have excluded Olga from all
communications, they want to hire a new lawyer that is not qualified, so that
he and Bill Day can negotiate a deal privately and without the involvement of
the VEHOA, It seems like in a corrupt switch they are attempting to negotiate
the return of their memberships and the cancellation of their lawsuits against
throwing the home owners under the bus.
With no Board of Directors, as we only
have 2 active members and 1 will resign soon, and no valid SC I am calling an Emergency Homeowners Election.
I am appalled by these dishonest
backstabbing maneuvers and will resign as Chairman of the SC as soon as the
special meeting is legally called.
Best
regards
Richard
Charbit
Response
to Request for VEHOA Members' Indication of Support or Nonsupport....
It seems like Mr.
Mike Traynor, self proclaimed lawyer in Panama and unlicensed to practice law
in this country, and continuosly offering advise that could hinder the VEHOA
and SC and writing documentation such as this, could once again harm the VEHOA.
This
is as low as they can go to protect their private personal agendas. This is a
SCAM. This has been designed by a hand few who are affected by loss of
memberships and personal lawsuits, who are too affraid of any personal actions
and now want to use their stay in the SC to protect themselves and have now
endorsed Ralf who they were highly critizing before in order to protect
themselves.
This
is a lie..... Marguerite Heffner did not vote on anything. There was no 3
people vote and how can there be an SC vote without a formal meeting with all
members invited. Furthermore, we have written proof of the Heffner´s
disagreement with the SC and their non vote.
The
acts of Jeannie Bell and Carol Bruner together with Bill Day and Mike Traynor,
who had a secret meeting and had Mike Traynor vote as an alternate, where he
was not, he had resigned (see below), in order to meet quorum and VOTE OFF
Marguerite from the SC without her knowledge or consent, and further conspire
to change legal representation which will financially hurt VEHOA and stall the
negotiations with the Developer in order to protect their own personal
interests are despicable.
This
communication is full of lies and misleading facts. I have been opposed to the
fact that the dropping of personal lawsuits against Jeannie Bell and Carol
Bruner and the reinstatementes of QBCC memberships are made part of the TOA
negotiations and this of course, brought me enemies. I do not have a hidden
agenda, they obviously do. I called for elections.
There is no SC at this time. There is
no legallity to Pat Mains in this SC. The legitimate SC is comprised of
Marguerite and Richard, and this phony SC created ilegally by these people for
their own personal grain, throwing the VEHOA under the bus with that.
We want and demand elections whether
they approve of these ilegallities or not. We want a new SC who is not
fraudulent, who will move with the TOA transfer in a fair and open way, without
hidden agenda, and we want a VEHOA that is legally within the laws of Panama,
with a full Board of Directors as required by law. Right now you have 2
members, one of which will resign the day of the elections, therefore, please,
lets see through these few, who are known in VE to put their personal interests
before anything else.
I will resign as soon as the elections
are properly and legally organized not like this pathetic message with
anonymous Inspector.
I urge the whole community to demand the resignation of these people who will
not hesitate to push all the home owners under the bus to further their own
financial interest
All
the best to you all,.
Richard
Charbit
SC chairman
Dear Homeowners:
There have been plenty of speculations and attacks from both the SC
and the VEneighbors in regards to the upcoming call for a General Assembly to
elect a new Board of Directors and Steering Committee.
Many of us want an end
to the ongoing fighting, character assassination, unnecessary expenditures of
Homeowners funds and of course, the long overdue transfer of the assets and
infrastructure; however, I feel much of the essence and important issues are lost
in a power struggle between two groups.
Let´s analyze this on a cool head and see the pros and cons of this January
election and why I strongly oppose we participate.
1. Deed
1937 has been deemed the ONLY governing set of bylaws for the VEHOA, according
to the Ministry of Government of Panama. This letter puts to rest the ongoing
debacles whether the Steering Committee has authority over the Board of
Directors, and the powers of each entity. Simply put, the Steering Committee
DOES NOT exist and DOES NOT have any authority under Deed 1937, therefore any
and all decisions must be made by the Board of Directors and all Homeowners
must adhere to any decision they make
This raises a HUGE RED
FLAG. We have a Board of Directors now, that in essence has resigned for the
most part, however, I am sure, will assist in a transition to a either a new
set of legally registered and government approved bylaws or a dissolution of this
HOA.
Who are these people
on the suggested new Board of Directors ballot and why no explanation or
background is given to the Homeowners who must vote for them? Do the Homeowners
realize that if we install a new Board of Directors, whom we know nothing about,
we are handing out on a silver platter all decisions and power of the VEHOA to
a group of virtual strangers, whom we know nothing about or what their
availability, intentions or purpose is. Why is the new or temporary Board of
Directors not composed of 5 Panamanian Homeowners of property in Valle
Escondido? We know for a fact, there are more than 5 homeowners who are
Panamanian nationals who have vested interest in Valle Escondido.
2.
If it has been determined
that the Steering Committee is not a legally recognized decision making force
in Panama, and has no validity because the 2010 CC&R´s are not registered
with the government, the question is, WHY ARE WE ELECTING A NEW SC? Many homeowners
do not know the 6 suggested members and no explanation, background or
qualifications is offered. Who are they? Are they full time residents? How long
have they lived in Valle Escondido? Are they title holders of their properties
or at least have a legally notarized Power of Attorney signed by the Legal
Representative of the corporation that owns their property
What should be voted
upon and installed is a temporary committee who will oversee that a new set of
bylaws is drafted, voted upon and approved by the majority of the Homeowners,
which will then be duly registered and presented to the Ministry of Government
for the required approval. Then and only then, you may call for elections of a
formal Steering Committee who will have some kind of authority, always keeping
in mind, that in Panama, the Board of Directors is the main authority in any
corporation.
Given the many
disagreements over transfer of assets and bylaws, it is in the best interest of
all Homeowners to dissolve the VEHOA and either incorporate to the municipality
or create an entirely new entity with a complete new set of governing rules,
where the Resort and all commercial lots are a part of, paying their
corresponding dues and assuming responsibility and liability, just like any
other Homeowner, on assessments and other matters. Why is there a
permanent exemption of dues on lots owned by family members of the Developer?
Why is there a permanent discount for condo owners of their yearly dues, yet
Boca Rio condos pay the same amount as everyone else? Or better yet, why even
have an association? It has been proven over the years that all residents and
homeowners of Valle Escondido never agree on matters that the ongoing fighting
and character assassination has been a patter for nearly 10 years.
So, the solution is
simple. Hire an experienced lawyer, who will draft a brand new, from scratch
set of bylaws, taking in to consideration the approved 2010 bylaws, the new
amendment suggestions, the approved Rules of May 2014, and the new issues we
face; present it for Homeowners review and approval and get it duly registered
with the Panamanian government or complete dissolve the VEHOA and become a
co-op or integrate to the municipality of Boquete.
3.
Transfer of Assets and Infrastructure: the main goal and long
overdue responsibility and obligation of the Developer. There are many
discrepancies with the master plan and how the valley was developed, missing
permits and concessions such as ANAM and MIVI, the issue with Union Fenosa
where the original plans were not approved and shortcut was taken in order to
not meet their requirements, which has turned in to a disaster that costs all
Homeowners nearly three times what their regular electric bill should be on a
monthly basis, plus many deficiencies in the overall power supply of the
community. Unmetered areas that the HOA gets billed for, municipal water being
used for years without paying a penny to the municipality of Boquete, no
concessions for ANAM, no control over the WWTP, no sidewalks, no street
lighting, deficient roads not built to standard or according to the approved
Master Plan, unfinished roads…., and the list goes on. Somehow, between all the
fighting and division amongst Homeowners, the main objective has been lost in
translation. Why are not fighting together to get a commitment from the
Developer on how these impending issues will be resolved. Although they can
allege a thousand times there is wear and tear, the deficiencies, faults and
non-completions are undeniable. Where are the sidewalks? Where are the missing
roads and the repairs to those streets not built to standard or according to
plan? Where is the required law compliant signage? Where is the street
lighting? Do we have a financial commitment to bring up the electric in the
valley to Union Fenosa standards, even if it’s a portion of the costs? Where are
the ANAM concessions and why do we continue to illegally take water from
Boquete´s municipal source?
In conclusion, let us
sit back for a minute, read, think, analyze……….Do we want the main legal
authority for the VEHOA in the hands of strangers? Do we want to continue
electing Steering Committees that have no legal muscle? Do we want to continue
to live divided into factions, getting nothing accomplish but to dislike our
neighbors? Do we want to continue living with outdated bylaws that do not
conform to our needs? Do we even want to be part of the VEHOA? Would we rather
dissolve the VEHOA and start from 0 with an entirely new set of governing rules
or better yet, be totally independent? Do we want to continue with poor
infrastructure that does not meet guidelines? Do we want to continue without
sidewalks or street lights that comprise our safety?
Let us put our
differences aside, stop the division between the owners and concentrate on real
issues, this is long overdue.
We need to use this
scheduled election date to choose what we really want to do as an Association,
and decide if we start from 0 and dissolve VEHOA, or if we amend the current
bylaws. We need to appoint not a new Board of Directors, but we need to select
a group of 3 Homeowners, who have lived in Valle Escondido long enough to know
the real issues at large and who spend more than 60% of their time in Panama in
order to steer us in the right direction. If the Homeowners choose to keep the
VEHOA intact, then, once a new set of governing laws is approved by the
government, a new Board and Committee can be elected to assure the
infrastructure and asset transfer is completed, or this temporary group can
lead the Board of Directors, with Homeowner´s approval into a dissolution of
the Association.
Please, reflect on
this, and comment on whether you support the path we are on, or if you are pro
a REAL change and want to make either a new set of bylaws or dissolve the VEHOA
altogether like many Homeowners have expressed. Please note, this is not an anti-developer,
anti-SC, anti-VEneighbors post, but rather a reflecting note and what the real
issues are and the focus shift of Homeowners.
I will boycott the
upcoming vote because it has been prepared inefficiently, in a haze, with
possible gave consequences for all homeowners.
Richard Charbit
