This is a response to the Guest Commentary in the Record-Bee (April 3) regarding the Clear Lake Riviera Community Association. Thank you to Mr. Trout. Finally, someone who has been in the secretive society known as the “Association” speaks and has something to say.
Mr. Trout”s commentary has confirmed what many feel about the HOA, that it is hypocrisy, rife with controversy, and serves no purpose even at a cost of 23 cents a day. The security, the one and only tangible beneficial service the CLRCA may have provided, fizzled, under much speculation as to whether it was a benefit to the community at all. To warrant the existence of the CLRCA, a campaign to harass and fine homeowner”s for code violations was initiated. It is written in the By-laws and Articles of Incorporation as an activity the CLRCA may engage in.
The only problem with this however, is that as a large-scale subdivision, not a condominium community, which the Davis-Stirling Act is more applicable to, the Clear Lake Riviera makes a daunting task for imposing CC&R”s. Not only because of its shear size, but one of the main reasons it is a desirable area and people want to live here is that there are many differences in lots and home styles, etc. The hypocrisy is to tell one homeowner they are wrong for making improvements to their property, when the subdivision is full of other examples of the same improvements.
It is arbitrary and damages the integrity of the community, which causes bitterness amongst neighbors. Lastly, the controversy is in the way the CLRCA is pandering to the County. The County of Lake is supposed to be providing services our property tax monies are paying for, i.e. road improvement, and weed abatement.
Instead of doing what they are paid for, the County is brokering deals with the Association to act as code enforcers, and they are trying to rip us off further by promoting a road improvement program under the guise of an assessment. As a human being, and understanding the laws of society, when I pay for a service there is an expectation of receiving an in-kind benefit. However, when there is a requirement to pay, i.e. taxes, association dues and fines, the collector may not provide anything, as you are obligated under a contract agreement.
If a person doesn”t receive services paid for elsewhere in society, the provider of such services would be in breech of the contract agreement, and be liable to return the money or make good on delivering what was paid for. Those that have abused the privilege and power given to them and do not act in the public good for all members of this community must be held accountable.
Lynn Farmer
Kelseyville
