To the editor:
I would like to address Martha Gomez’s letter of April 1. Ms. Gomez’s small group of disgruntled homeowners, Clearbrook Residents for Equity, is supported by the Common Interest Homeowners Coalition.
Fact: The difference between these two groups is that one group cost homeowners over $500,000 and the other over $41,000 in legal fees for lawsuits they have lost in court.
We are tired of the same rhetoric from the same people over and over again. It would be nice if they had something positive to contribute or offer their communities for the health, welfare and safety of all. It is evident that they prefer writing letters distorting/misstating the facts/issues and travel the state stirring the pot of dissidence.
Fact: There was a Task Force to Study Homeowners Associations that held five public meetings throughout the state. The state Department of Community Affairs, the Community Associations Institute and CIHC worked together on the UCIOA bill for over a year, when the CIHC walked out abruptly. CIHC then went to state Sen. Shirley Turner to sponsor S-2016.
Ms. Gomez states S-2016 would cost unit owners $4 per year but this bill clearly states $6, she fails to mention the S-2344/A-3855 UCIOA would cost unit owners 25 cents per year.
In today’s era of political corruption, do we really need another tax to give them more money to steal from us? She neglects to mention that this form of taxation will bring in millions of dollars in revenue for another layer of bureaucracy that will dictate how communities "should" run (through an advisory panel with seats reserved for CIHC members).
Most communities have a multitude of methods to handle disputes, such as a hearing before a grievance committee, alternate dispute resolution, mediation and arbitration, the last recourse being the court. She mentions that an office of ombudsman will offer, at "no cost," a vehicle for complaints to be heard, but fails to mention the financial burden on community interest homeowners to handle this newly created avenue for their frivolous complaints.
She says Section 4 took the CCA board to court because it did not adhere to its responsibilities when in fact this matter went to alternate dispute resolution and was mediated out of court. In any dispute ADR has always been offered first. Ms. Gomez’s followers had refused ADR and chose the court system as their method to settle their dispute, in which they lost.
Ms. Gomez attacks the current board of directors at Clearbrook. This board is comprised of dedicated volunteers who were voted into office by the unit owners. For the past several years, the board of directors has at least two open workshops each month; residents are welcome to attend and address the board. There is a televised open board meeting once a month, residents attend with the opportunity for their concerns to be heard or watch from the comforts of their home.
We have not seen Ms. Gomez at meetings since last August when she opposed the revision of our by-laws. She and her group suffered an overwhelming defeat of 1,380-211 for the changes. She states that the 34 pages could only be comprehended by a Philadelphia lawyer, but fails to mention the "three" separate town meetings that were held. Residents brought forth their questions/asked for explanations and answers were given in at great lengths in plain language. It is sad that she lacks of mental faculties to process the information as presented to everyone else.
It is quite evident there are two sides to any issue. The burden involved is to speak truthfully and not to distort facts and thereby creating fiction.
Ben A. Roth
Monroe
Mr. Roth is a member of the Clearbrook Community Association board of directors.
