To: Aditi.Shahkarwar@asm.ca.gov
Sent: 12/5/2017 12:28:01 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
Subj: For Rep. Low
Sent: 12/5/2017 12:28:01 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
Subj: For Rep. Low
Dear Rep. Lo,
Thank you for hosting last night’s gathering and listening
patiently to our ideas. I would like to remind you of the points I brought up
in two areas, where I believe that the state government has over-reached
itself: HOA governance and housing legislation.
A. HOA governance
As a Board member of a small HOA, I had hoped that Davis Stirling
would have been ameliorated but instead it was made more stringent, and the
last session of the state legislature has produced additional onerous
provisions. This is based on the unrealistic notion that an HOA is a level of
government, when in fact we more resemble a small business. Anyone who deals
with HOAs will attest to the fact that most homeowners are not interested in
engaging in an exercise in participatory democracy. They want the property
well-maintained, their dues low and to be left alone. Very few bother to
attend Board meetings, we Board members are re-elected by default because no
one else cares to run, and we cannot even obtain a quorum for an election.
This is true of many HOAs; just attend an ECHO conference! Our own management
company is miles away and we do not have onsite staff, so Board members are
more active than in larger HOAs. Thus, the full force of the Brown Act is not
useful. I do not see how the membership is better informed if Board members do
not communicate with one another over simple day-to-day matters; certainly
they are not better served.
Some of the latest laws do not respect our status as an
enterprise while imposing governmental obligations on us. For example, in a
condo building with a single roof, that roof has to be maintained as a unit.
The Board has to decide, in an open meeting, perhaps after polling the
members, whether to add solar panels or not; it makes no sense for individual
homeowners to put up panels here and there on a common roof. On the other
hand, if one resident harasses another, particularly a member of a protected
class, this is a police matter. The most a community manager or Board member
can do is possibly mediate a purely verbal dispute. We should not be held
liable for handling felonies. I would hope that the state government could
develop a more realistic view of what an HOA is.
B. Housing
I am an advocate of sensible development. I believe that the Bay
area definitely needs more housing, particularly affordable housing at every
level, to provide for those who already live or work here. I applaud the
decision to restore to cities the power to demand of developers that they
include a certain percentage of bmr units in their housing proposals. I would
also note that housing projects are often delayed not necessarily because of
opposition to housing per se, but because developers include in their
proposals unacceptable, environmentally egregious provisions regarding
offices, heights, densities and setbacks. Having said that, I would still note
that the number of new units demanded of any area has to be consonant with the
capacity of that area to absorb them and still maintain its quality of
life.
In this regard, the most recent housing legislation is overkill
in that it takes away the authority of cities to make rational decisions
concerning environment, water quality and availability, traffic, and the
general quality of life. It seems that public officials have become mesmerized
by the planners’ visions of bringing urban density to suburban areas, based on
the very questionable notion that this is what the public, especially the
younger generations want.
I am including a link to an interesting article in this
regard.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/
Thank you for your attention to these
issues.
Sincerely,
Phyllis D
Cupertino
