15 responses to “Community Feedback Requested: Parking Allocation Process”

1. The BOD did NOT disband the committee. If we are going to place blame come after me as I called for a vote to disband the committee until we knew what New City would be doing with our lot. We also were losing our chairperson as Liz was joining the board. There were 3 remaining members and no one else – yourself included – wanted to setup and join the committee so we did not feel much really could be decided until we knew New City’s plans. Also, as I stated in your parking essay on Facebook recently, you had no issues volunteering me for the committee but where were you if you cared so much about this issue last year?

   Prior to the disbandment I do know more than one resident inquired about buying an additional space. As it is in the by-laws for all of us to read this shouldn’t be surprising as any owner can petition the board. The committee also sent out a survey asking for owners’ thoughts on various parking issues, and this was one of the questions. This topic has been brought up and I feel like this is one of the biggest topics of conversation the building has had in the 2 years I have been here.

   When the committee was disbanded more than one owner approached me about buying my 2nd spot so again it’s not one person.

   To say that this is driven by one person seems to be another attempt to cause a lot of unnecessary drama. If you have questions why can’t you ask in a civil tone instead of attacking one of your neighbors. This seems to be an ongoing issue and it really needs to stop. We all chose to live in a community where we have to work together. We don’t all have to be best friends, but we do have to work together for the betterment of the community and not just look out for our best interest. We most certainly don’t need to try to blow each out up.

   This also isn’t your first attempt to cause parking drama this year. You recently wrote an entire Facebook essay about giving favor for these very spots and our visitor parking spaces to certain units. I see you pulled that post down. Was that an attempt to hope we would forget you actually make much more noise about parking than anyone and yet still haven’t offered any suggestions of your own?

   I am not on anyone’s side BUT, I am also not going to let one person whose seems to have an agenda is to create drama have the loudest voice. I have 2 spaces and I only use 1 on a regular basis. In fact, all of us with 2 spaces only use 1 one on a regular basis – yourself included so who are we to be the loudest voices in this discussion? If there are 4 spaces available to buy and the building can sell them, I think we should. Our HOA needs money for a lot of improvements and some owners want to buy a space.

   I do believe that these spots should be sold at a market rate. I also don’t believe that the size of a unit should factor into if you should be awarded an additional spot as has also been suggested. If you bought a unit with 1 spot then that is what you paid for, you will need to pay extra for an additional one if one is available.

   I don’t think this is a land grab in anyway other than several residents have to park at least one vehicle on the street. I know I don’t want to park on the street and if we can solve their issue and help the community as a whole then why shouldn’t it be discussed – note I said discussed. Screaming at neighbors with of fake information needs to stop. Please be civil we don’t all have to agree but we don’t need to throw out slander to get our view across either.

   • Thank you for your kind words, and I appreciate your perspective on the response from the community member. It’s intriguing to observe the passionate defense put forth by someone who supports the board’s actions while dismissing the concerns raised by others. It highlights the diversity of viewpoints within the community.

     Regarding the disbandment of the parking committee, it’s worth noting the distinction between the board not disbanding the committee and a temporary vote to put it on hold. However, it does raise questions about the timing of this decision, particularly when recommendations were being sought and residents were expressing their interest in purchasing additional parking spaces. It seems that there may be varying opinions on the necessity and implications of temporarily suspending the committee.

     In terms of practicing civility and avoiding slander, it is indeed important for all parties involved to uphold these principles. While it may be challenging at times, striving to maintain a respectful and empathetic approach can contribute to more constructive conversations. Open-mindedness and a willingness to understand different perspectives can go a long way in fostering a harmonious community.

     Regarding the suggestion to sell the parking spots at a market rate and without factoring in unit size, I understand that this may seem fair on the surface. However, it’s important to consider the specific circumstances and offers involved.

     It appears that the offer made in this case definitely sparked concerns among residents who felt it was an attempt to undercut other offers and bypass necessary discussions. Taking the time to understand and acknowledge the emotions and feelings of those directly involved can lead to a more empathetic and comprehensive understanding of the situation. Ask around.

     Ultimately, it is crucial for all parties to recognize the heightened tensions and take a step back to reflect on their approach. Engaging in more nuanced and respectful discussions, even when addressing uncomfortable truths or challenging the status quo, can pave the way for finding common ground and moving towards a healthier and more harmonious community.

     I’m here to continue the conversation and assist you further. Feel free to share any other thoughts or questions you may have.

     • I agree there are heightened tensions which is why I have started speaking up more and asking for civility, something that seems hard for some to actually participate in.

       To all units if you have concerns please speak up, what are your actual concerns? I know many of us would love to actually hear from you in your own words as this is why we have open forums.

       Jeff, I think having you speak out for them is the issue. It seems like you have an agenda if you don’t then I apologize but do suggest you review your approach as you come out against specific people A LOT.

       While I agree I have not spoken to every unit I have spoken with a number. I know for a fact you have not spoken to all either. I suggest let’s have an open discussion without slander or threats to others who want to speak up. Each unit should speak for themselves in a civil manner.

2. I would say the process of the BOD worked back in December when there was a full BOD and 2 members were able to vote without a conflict of interest. We wanted a transparent process before deciding anything regarding parking spots. There was also a 2nd offer around the same time. I agree we should have been more transparent but struggled with juggling all of the other things going on at that time (budget, electrical issues, etc) – this issue was put on the back burner until we had more time. Even though it’s now 5 months later – the BOD was likely still juggling more pressing issues (as we’re all painfully aware of).

   The disbanding of the parking committee was done by the parking committee and not the BOD.

   I do think selling “a” spot is the right thing to do. There are owners that want multiple spots and if we have extra they should be able to purchase it. It also helps with some of our financial challenges.

   I also think the process outlined is fair and that is the best we can hope for in this type of process. Trying to get to an “equitable” or “just” process is not realistic. We’re all invested in the community and passionate about our perspectives – which means we all have a different view on what equitable means because none of us are neutral.

   • i agree selling a spot is the right thing to do, but I don’t think it should be in an area where we dont know what the future holds and starting a new precedence on the end of the building where we need to keep our options open for guests and temporary parking. I think we can find several spots for sale when the parking lot is resurfaced.

3. Understanding the complete context of this story is crucial. The concept of selling parking spots only emerged when a board member, who was about to leave office, allegedly made a cash offer to fellow board members last December for a spot located in the middle of our limited options for guest parking in the foreseeable future. It’s worth noting that this spot has for 25 years been available without any specific ownership. The offer was made without prior community discussion regarding the property’s purpose, such as leasing or using it for guest parking. It has brought up questions for us as to why this proposal was made without broader community involvement – and how only an emergency vote among the remaining 2 board members saved us here. Luckily, we had three members at that operating in quorum (currently we do not).

   In addition, it’s important to mention that this same board member previously announced the disbandment of the Nugrape parking committee during an HOA meeting, stating that its purpose was “solely to serve the board”, whereas the individual that had started, the committee defined it more as “trying to get a polls for how the community feels about our available parking spots, so that we can make a democratic decision together). (I was present for both of those meetings ).

   Furthermore, this individual expressed the belief that decisions about our parking spots should be postponed entirely until the completion of the New City buildout. However, a few months later, the same board member attempted to buy the very parking spot the committee was working on recommendations for.

   The amount offered to permanently attach the parking spot to a Nugrape unit was also surprisingly low, considering the uncertain future of our property and the limited financial gain. It raises the question of whether selling our assets in this whacky manner is wise, especially without broader community input.

   One significant concern is the lack of communication and transparency surrounding this issue. It raises questions as to why the discomfort expressed by the rest of the board when the cash offer was made was not shared with the community, rather than revealing it in the meeting minutes several months later as an appendix.

   Furthermore, I am surprised this coming out at this moment when we are fully aware of the actions of the board are not in compliance with the by-laws. Decisions by a two member board are not binding or enforceable, and certainly wouldn’t be recognized by future boards. If two members are attempting to sell any of our property outside of quorum it is not ethical. It is an attempt to push forward an overly complicated lottery process, despite the current board not operating in compliance with the bylaws – and one of the holdover members is the same one that wants to obtain the property. It raises questions about the fairness and integrity of the process, particularly when the same board member interested in buying a parking spot is involved in the convoluted decision-making process. The potential conflict of interest adds another layer of concern.

   The complexity of the proposed lottery process is also worth noting. Even after careful reading, it remains challenging to grasp — which means for sure there’s got to be a loophole in there, somewhere. It raises questions as to why this lottery process was suggested only after the cash offer was made, without the community ever having agreeing to sell any of our property. The situation brings up ethical concerns and resembles a landgrab.

   Additionally, it brings to mind the alleged involvement of the same board member last November – responsible in the decision-making process of approving or denying potential property buyers — while simultaneously attempting to make multiple cash offers to compete on those same properties, and causing discomfort among the Nugrape sellers. It raises questions about the adherence to the bylaws, which state that directors should recuse themselves from such situations to maintain impartiality.

   Given all of these circumstances, it is disconcerting to read the statement in this communication that “the board can sell property at any time to anyone.” as if all of this context hasn’t just occurred. It seems very misleading, given the facts. It raises questions about the governance and decision-making processes within the community. It is important to emphasize that as a community, we have never expressed a desire to sell the parking spots. The current push appears to primarily benefit one individual, which is concerning. It prompts us to question the transparency and fairness of the board’s actions. When board members engage in property transactions without fully disclosing them to the community, it is vital for us to reflect on the situation and seek answers to ensure the community’s best interests are being served.

   Given concerns of this gravity, we shouldn’t sell any property without a vote by the entire set of homeowners to approve.

   • There seems to be incomplete information leaking out to the community. The BOD is not involved in approving/disproving homeowners. There were questions on the interpretation of the by-laws that came up during the selling process which the BOD did work with the attorney to get clarification on. One BOD member recused themselves from this process because of a potential conflict.

     As a BOD member for the prior 2 years, we worked closely with the attorney to ensure we were abiding by the by-laws.

     • i know you did, and always with impeccable ethics. Any of us can probably just simply ask the homebuyers and sellers if their experience matched with this intention. they’re just a text message away.

   • Hey Jeff,

     The intent of the survey and conversation feed is to get the community’s feedback on the process above. The board has not decided to actually sell a parking space, simply to collect feedback on the process as our understanding is that there are various views on the best use of the parking space LCEs. 

     Happy to speak over the phone in more detail – let me know when would work for you!

     I echo Kellie’s sentiment above as well.

   • Dude, where was this energy when we were out on the dock? You know, when you were inviting us to Hormuz’ birthday and putting on a good face? Its funny how you were shaking our hands at another meeting (while you and others were trying to oust Chris from the board) again putting on a good face in front of everyone, then not 2 weeks later writing a message calling Chris a Sociopath? REALLY dude? I’m tired of the REAL bullies in this building calling me a bully when I ask for consideration on things like noise or name calling of my husband. But hey man, keep digging.

     • i see your point of view. I think it is a good goal theres no reason we cant get along personally. I wish i hadnt used that term, but words sometimes fly when the same trauma keeps happening over and over to the feelings of our owners. On the business level (which should not be personal, but hard in an HOA) we’re in a rut each time a new person tries to contribute to the community on the board gets into a fight with the same personality and quits or disengages from the board nearly every year (last year was the only exception – thanks to 2 strong ladies). Alexis, John Bennett, Bennett H, Chris W, James J — Its frustrating when that’s happened mutliple times over the last 7 years, and each year that happens, like this year, the building pays the price for an entire year because the same people get rewarded for making others that are trying to contribute to the greater good feel bad trying to help, which trickles down to the personal vibe and makes it unbalanced. Theres a gross feeling of mistrust that trickles down. But was i beyond extremely worked up and embarrased for our community that this was happening to us yet another time in February? Absolutely. That specific word I used at that moment? shouldn’t have said it, i apologize to you both. It doesn’t fit with my overarching goal of trying to find a way to work this out.

       • I’ll let Chris handle this. I personally have nothing for you. There’s a reason I’ve stopped talking to several people in this building. Add yourself to the list. I’m tired of two faced people. Don’t respond. Again I’m done.

   • Note that this is a “Reply to Jeff Roberts”; not to any other comment.

     The information presented above is at best specious, misleading, slanderous, and/or just flat out wrong and “made up”.

     The topic of selling spaces to generate revenue first came up in 2021 when NuGrape faced a huge cost to repair the building in parallel with continuing to operate and at the same time, making small improvements. It’s very difficult to do that and not burden all owners with assessments. So, in 2021, the Board started kicking around the idea of generating income while at the same time improving the homeowner value proposition. When there was no movement on the topic by August of 2022, an owner made a written offer to the HOA via the Board following the process defined in the Declaration.

     Not sure where “guest parking” enters this discussion. All the parking spaces up for allocation were contemplated to be in the fenced parking area. It’s like the argument is about a spectre.

     The parking committee provided feedback to the Board about the survey it conducted. The result echoed what we see most every weekday, that the issues were mostly due to construction parking. Additionally, most respondents felt that they were ambivalent about police enforcement for people truly illegally parked (since the yellow curb is not enforceable). So, the committee recommended it go on pause until at least all the construction settles down. Also, the committee minutes didn’t list you as either a member of the committee nor an attendee of the committee meetings. So, the statements in the previous message are confusing to me. If you were there, thank you for participating with the group.

     All individuals are encouraged to consult their own legal counsel at their expense. That said, the BOD being made-up of 3 members means that a quorum of the BOD is 2 members. Those two members, though, must agree because no individual board member can make a decision on their own. Everyone needs to understand that Board members do have very broad power and they are empowered to make different decisions than previous boards. This is why it is imperative to have rational, objective, and duty-driven volunteers be part of the board who regularly ask themselves “what would a judge or jury say about this?”.

     As for all the other feedback made above, related to this parking policy or not, there’s a thing called slander and libel – NOTE that I save everything said about me as a person and as a volunteer to this HOA, even those messages sent to the Board but not shared with the HOA. I tolerated the show made after the vote to remove me but as everyone here sees, it continues. It pains me to see/read the comments as I would prefer not to escalate to the legal route.

     So, I ask one final time for an unofficial cease and desist.

     If you or anyone want to have a civil conversation regarding your questions, or even want to be a fly on the wall to that type of conversation, I remain open to it.

     Patience, tolerance, and grace are perishable virtues.

   • ok.. I appreciate the feedback, and I want to assure you that I take it seriously. It is important for me to acknowledge that my perspective may differ from others, and I recognize that some of my comments may have been perceived as personal. I take full responsibility for any unintended impact they may have had. I don’t like that and I’ll take responsbility for how that came across.

     Whether right or wrong, I am always genuinely concerned about the feelings of those who were affected by this situation. It’s disheartening to see individuals who wanted a discussion on parking options feeling undermined by their own team after learning of this issue – and without 2 other board members to counter would have gone through. I believe in the importance of addressing concerns and giving voice to those who may not feel comfortable speaking out.

     Still, it’s important for me to reflect on my approach and consider how I can improve in these situations.

     One thing I will not apologize for is my own feelings. I have a strong sense of discomfort when I witness a lack of thoughtful conversation about parking and someone making an offer without considering the impact on other owners who also wanted to purchase. This situation becomes even more challenging when it involves the last available parking spot for our team.

     Moving forward, I am committed to actively addressing these concerns and fostering an environment where open dialogue and understanding can thrive. By taking responsibility for our words and actions, we can work together to rebuild the trust that may have been eroded. Thank you for bringing these points to my attention, and I assure you that I will continue to advocate for a fair and inclusive community where everyone’s voice is valued and respected. My apologies here.

     • Your retrospective appears to be conflating the timeline and chain of events into something quite different than what happened. Your perspective of Board discussions are not conceived by a firsthand accounts so whomever you are sharing your perspective with may also want to take that into consideration. The task here is to discuss the policy but you’ve taken it as another platform for the vitriol and a continued and relentless effort to paint your perspective of me to the HOA.Please, we have 22 perspectives here.

       “…perceived as personal”? Your words are black and white. You might as well use names since it’s very easy to identify who you’re talking about anyway. Own those words. Don’t disguise opinion or speculation as fact. And don’t lie.

       “…unintended impact” careful with that one. There are plenty of examples where your words have impacted other residents’ and prospective residents’ perceptions of myself (and others) without them even knowing me on their own.

       “…affected by this situation…”? Realizing what you meant in the following sentence, I now understand that you may be suggesting that Liz and Kellie were somehow affected by someone asking for a parking space and, rightfully so, offering to pay the HOA for the opportunity. What if that person was any other owner? They would have done the same thing in my opinion. They completely removed bias from what they needed to do.
       You missed the fact that the issue was on the BOD’s plate with no action by the BOD for almost a year before the offer was made in accordance with the only definition available – the Declaration. So, confronted with a serious offer in August 2022, they could do nothing but take action and make decisions. They could have decided not to sell anything and this policy would never have come to the HOA for review. So, I don’t know why the issue is so acute toward myself as a homeowner who was just following the defined process. They could have put the policy into action without even having this discussion but they didn’t because I asked for the discussion/survey among all homeowners.

       “…undermined by their own team…”? It took a while but I now understand that you are communicating that you feel Liz and Kellie were “undermined” by Chris (the individual owner who recused himself from the process). Why would you put words into their mouths like that? They did their duty to the HOA (BTW, they were only 2 BOD members – not a full BOD) and said that the Declaration alone wasn’t good enough and there needed to be an additional process. If that is not a correct understanding of what you were attempting to communicate, please help us all understand what you meant.

       “…who also wanted to purchase” can you please share with the community which owners asked the Board about purchasing a parking space between 2004 and August 2022?

       “…last available parking spot for our team”?

       I am not following the line of thinking, apologies. I don’t know what those phrases are attempting to articulate, what they refer to, or what they are based on. I assume your last sentence is not specifically addressed to me but rather a personal brand selling point for the community. It’s ok. “actions, not words” is something we all can truly live by.