| |
To inspire positive change at the Shybary Grand by identifying issues that need to be dealt with by the board and management company, especially if those issues have ignored California Law.
To magnify the voice of the homeowners who desire change in the building.
Questions that have been presented through normal channels have gone unanswered in many cases. A person in charge is more likely to fix an error when an audience is around rather than if no one knows about the problem.
To help the developer sell the remaining units in the building for a premium price.
In allowing homeowners' suggestions to further elevate the quality of the building, our investments too will increase in value. If the developer sells the remaining units for a premium price, the value of our units automatically goes up with the help of mls comps.
Issues this website has brought attention to / issues that appear to be on the path to resolution:
- Legal board elections at the Shybary Grand.
- Steps toward Homeowners rights to Civil Code 1365 financial disclosure (still pending, but word has it - a CPA saw "the books" - requested documents however have still not been provided to at least one known homeowner.)
- Steps toward moving the Shybary Grand HOA out of debt.
Some other positive changes:
- Shybary Grand Homeowners Committees have formed showing that homeowners are getting involved in the running of their building - they are exercizing interest and having a say in what goes on:
- Social Comittee
- Architectural Committee
- Retail Services Committee
- Rules & Regulations Committee
- The Rooftop has gotten all kinds of great, new furniture. It's a place people want to be.
Issues this website still wishes to have addressed:
- It is a conflict of interest for a developer to simultaneously majority rule the board of directors AND own and operate the management company that runs the building three years into the HOA's inception.
- We strongly urge homeowners to read this LA Times Article detailing the reasons why a board should not contain the same people that work for the management company.
- We understand the developer announced at the 6/10/08 HOA meeting in front of at least 25 people, that he will be 'giving' approximately $600,000 to the HOA, taking the HOA out of debt.
- Is he 'giving' the HOA this money, or does he actually 'owe' it? And will the HOA be getting this money with interest?
- It is the developer's job (via management company responsibilities) to collect HOA dues.
- If the developer does in fact have an approximate $600,000 balance, why has the developer not collected this balance from himself to deposit with the Homeowners Association? Has this money been collected already?
- Did the developer pay for the installation of the pool? Is the pool a development cost? Did the development cost get pushed off onto the homeowners?
- We are understanding there to be a line item on the HOA's expenses showing pool & spa installation: $80,000. Is this expense really on our HOA expenditures?
- Why does the rooftop area lining Lindley Place have 'private property' signs on it when it appears to be common space in the building's condominium plan? Is it common space? Did the homeowners have an affirmative 67% vote to give this area to the developer family member who also sits on the board? Homeowners have asked this question and it has not officially been answered, so the question is being asked again.
- When two of the penthouse units expanded onto the roof of the Shybary Grand, did that expansion take common space away from the homeowners? Does this building permit (pdf 1.1 MB) answer the question?
Q&A:
Q: Why was a petition turned in to have a vote to remove the board of directors?
A: The board is majority ruled by the developer plus two family members. We understand that to change management companies, the board must vote to do so by a simple majority. Developer and family are not likely to vote to stop using the management company they own. Solution: Get at least 3 (out of 5) homeowners on the board - that way the homeowners would have majority rule of the board congruent with their majority ownership of the building, and could successfully decide to change management companies if they wanted to.
Q: What came of the petition to have a vote to remove the board?
A: The board did, in effect, respond to the petition by unofficially removing themselves from the board. The developer and two family-members are however re-running for seats. The developer will most likely re-elect himself to the board with the 90 or so units he still owns. But at least this presents the opportunity for other homeowners to get a possible homeowner majority-rule of the board (at least 3 seats). Read about Voting Power.
|