LETTERS TO EDITOR |
January 29, 2006
In recent weeks various articles in newspaper created quite a lot of interesting letters to the editors, from both sides of the fence. Just make your own mind up which side of the fence you prefer! |
Herman Neubart BOYNTON BEACH Posted December 15 2005 Re the letter, "Ombudsman insulted boards" (Dec. 5): It is unfortunate that the letter writer's opinion was not researched before he decided to condemn Mr. Rizzo's opinion. Firstly, the letter writer gave no thought to the fact that Mr. Rizzo has had the advantage of receiving and reviewing hundreds, if not thousands, of complaints registered against boards of directors for the past year or so. Secondly, the letter writer should have reviewed the complaints registered against the past boards of directors where he resides. It is my opinion that Mr. Rizzo's comments are valid, and I wholeheartedly agree with him. Maintenance, reserves complex Editor, Recently you published two letters to the editor criticizing the condo ombudsman. Especially the last one was very disturbing, considering it came from an attorney who works for the city attorney of Miami Beach, a city troubled by condo problems. Ms. Montoya has obviously no problems with the fact that her fellow attorneys can't make up their minds about what the existing statutes really say. Isn't it really disturbing if owners get opposing opinions from two lawyers who work for the same firm? What is wrong with this remark: "You want to live in peace and harmony!" Isn't that what we are all looking for? I don't think we are buying our homes to create a legal battleground littered with litigation.
The board and the owners of the Americas on the Park Condos obviously agreed at the last board meeting with Dr. Rizzo. They used common sense for their decision, not opposing legal opinions!
As to reserve funds? Ms. Montoya, who seems to be so concerned about the welfare of condo owners, should have done her homework before discussing the fact that lack of reserve funds is the main reason for red-tagging condo buildings. Claiming to be in the middle of this battle, Montoya should know that the reason for the problem is the lack of accountability of the board members, who seemingly failed to do their duty -- see Castle Beach Condos. The best reserve funds don't help if they are used for a different purpose than intended. Misuse of reserve funds by board members is one of the most common reasons for complaints.
I just received an e-mail from a condo owner who complained that his board used $8,000 of the sewer reserve fund to buy new plants. His question: "What should we do about it? The last time we complained to the DBPR they found our board guilty of violating the statutes and levied a fine. A fine we owners had to pay!"
Many owners will agree with Dr. Rizzo: As long as there are no legislative safeguards to prevent board members from spending reserve funds for their pet projects, reserve funds can easily be abused. Happens all the time!
And I really start
wondering why it is always the presidents of these associations who
are criticizing Dr. Rizzo. Lots of owners and board members are
writing “Thank You” letters to Dr. Rizzo for his excellent work
and for helping to solve many problems. But the letters criticizing
his work or his statements most often start with the words: "I'm
the president of my association and I was aghast ....!” Is being president of an association a requirement not to like the Condo Ombudsman?
Jan Bergemann,
President e-mail: [email protected] Dear
Sun-Sentinel Editor: |
OMBUDSMAN
INSULTED BOARDS Len Pravda -- Boynton Beach December 5, 2005 I am writing in response to an article, published on Wednesday, by staff writer Joe Kollin, regarding homeowners' reserve funds in which our state condo ombudsman, Virgil Rizzo, was quoted as saying, "I'm against reserves. It puts money into coffers that directors can [illegally] get into." I am president of a homeowners' association and, if the quote is accurate, I am disappointed in Florida's choice for ombudsman. I strongly object to his implication that our board would illegally use homeowners' funds. We, the board, are also homeowners and these are our funds. Our board -- and I am certain the same holds true for many other boards -- comprises individuals who have volunteered their time and effort to make our community safe, attractive and affordable for our residents. I emphasize the "time and effort." It is no easy task for a group of seniors to listen to complaints and objections daily, create methods for getting through current crises and plan for the future. And planning for the future sometimes includes the case for reserves. There are always two sides to the "reserve" issue. On one hand, there is the argument that "I may not be alive to see what this money will purchase." On the other is "let's pay a little each month so that I won't be hit with a large assessment." The final decision regarding the creation or funding of reserves should be a community-board decision. For the state ombudsman to state that the directors can illegally get into the coffers is implying that directors are not working on behalf of their communities. I think Mr. Rizzo needs to rethink his position or, at least, his wording. Rizzo's comments outrageous Ghastly
comments from ombudsman
|
Letters To Editor To These Articles: |
Boards'
excesses Sherwood Federman Boynton Beach Posted December 29 2005 Living in a homeowner's association is like living in a Communist regime. Neighbors watching and spying on neighbors is not the American way. The Cyber Citizens for Justice group seems to have the best handle on exposing the excesses of these overzealous boards. Condo `coalition' has other agenda Disgruntled Homeowners Rauni
Armbruster, Phoenix, AZ. 85053
In response to Mr Herman's letter, regarding
"disgruntled homeowners" he fails to mention that
the Rules, agreed upon when the purchase is made, are
often changed by the whims of the Board, without regard or
consideration of the homeowners. Yes, the Board members
are residents also, however, they set everything up to
make themselves the miniature Monarchy of the community. There
is much documentation nationwide about these so-called elections and
the corruption therein, with no checks & balances or
governmental oversight. These "management companies"
while being licensed, are still hired & paid by the
current Board of Directors and have a vested interest in seeing that
the regime doesn't change, because that change, could
end their contracts, and all of the wonderful contracts they
disperse through their managerial positions. Finally,
most homeowners are decent law abiding citizens who just want to own
their homes and live their lives free from the constant harrassment
of the few members of a Board of Directors who obviously do not have
lives of their own to live, and therefore, live to
govern the lives of their neighbors.
The HOA concept, is an abomination to
everything the United States of America was founded upon, and
the Freedoms and Rights inheirent to the Country, are not
Freedoms that Homeowners, who are imprisoned in the HOA
system are free to exercise. As far as the ability to just
pick up and move, most local governments encourage, and
many require HOAs to be installed into all new developments because
this frees the cities & the counties from providing services,
and allows them to tax those citizens anyway, without
providing services. In short, the HOA concept is now
forced upon free citizens because local governments wish to abrogate
their responsibilities to their citizens.
Positive Condo reform Posted January 3, 2006
It
is important for readers to be clear about what groups represent which
interests regarding condominiums and home owner associations. The
group that is FOR positive condo (and HOA) reform is Cyber Citizens for
Justice http://www.ccfj.net. CCFJ
is for: 1.
Education of
association members 2.
Accountability
of the people in charge of other peoples’ homes and welfare 3.
Easy enforcement
of existing law 4.
Fair
elections I
have gone to a number of the condo town halls put on by the Condo
Advisory Council, through the auspices of state DBPR/Land Sales agency.
I have heard some amazing testimony from home owners about abuses
by condo and homeowner boards. It
is very clear to me that the actual homeowners need protection. As
an advocate for allowing home owners to have animal companions through Nothing
underhanded about condo owners wanting value Wednesday,
January 18, 2006 I'm
not sure what is "underhanded" about a link leading to the
Florida Statutes, but if the specialized attorneys from the Community
Association Leadership Lobby (the lobbying group operated by Becker
& Poliakoff P.A.) say so, Charlotte Greenbarg gladly will parrot
their statements ("Cyber Citizens for Justice using underhanded
methods," Jan. 6 letter). Somebody claiming to be a community leader
definitely should not be in favor of the bill filed by Rep. Carl Domino,
R-Jupiter, HB 391, which would serve only the financial interest of the
service providers to the detriment of the owners. Ms. Greenbarg claims to be the elected leader in a
district that is known as the hotbed for association problems in
Florida. We recently have seen many recalls of boards by unhappy owners
and election results that ousted sitting boards. This is a clear sign of
owners figuring out what really is going on and that the owners have to
take action to protect their families' welfare. That may be the reason
why these community leaders are so mad about a consumer organization
that raises the awareness of the owners. Their stupid attacks on Florida's condominium
ombudsman — some were false — fall into the same category, because
his function as election monitor finally has created more fair elections
in associations, obviously much to the dismay of long-term board
members, who were used to being "reelected" by
"elections" that would make a banana republic proud. There are only two sides of the fence: homeowners,
who want good service for as little money as possible, and service
providers, who want as much money as possible for as little service as
possible. Everybody has to decide which side he or she is on. We
homeowners need owner-friendly reform. There's nothing underhanded about
that. JAN BERGEMANN, president Cyber Citizens For Justice Deland Coalition's
agenda a smokescreen A couple of years ago, the coalition argues that its opponents, consumer advocacy groups such as Cyber Citizens For Justice, were just disgruntled and dissident homeowners. Unable to silence these homeowners with lawsuits and other legal tactics, the coalition is upset that CCFJ and other groups of homeowners like it have emerged with a powerful and respectful purpose: Inform the public of the reality of Florida condo living. It should be illegal for board members and attorneys of your condo or homeowner association to unjustly enrich themselves with your monthly dues. Yet what record does the attorney general have of any board member or attorney firm they have ever penalized for embezzlement of condo funds? Not one! Why not? It's no secret that condo laws, which were created by members of this coalition, have no power to protect homeowners from boards and their attorneys. Hiding under an umbrella that yells, "Of the people and for the people of associations," the coalition's agenda is clear in my opinion: Protect their cash-cow, not the residents of Florida! |
Disgruntled
condo owners make noise For
many weeks, I have been reading the negative comments about boards of
directors and the apparent approval of their viewpoint by the supposedly
neutral ombudsman, Virgil Rizzo. More information on condo coalition Cyber Citizens for Justice using underhanded methods Homeowners who don't like rules have plenty of options |