SHOULDN’T SOMEBODY CARE?

Whitney Ranch - Image courtesy of City Data

By: Rana Goodman

If you are a registered voter and a politician campaigns on a platform of wanting to hear what his constituents have to say, then, once elected tunes out all but a select few, shouldn’t somebody care?

When hard working people save money for years to follow the “American dream” to purchase a home in a beautiful “planned community” known an HOA, only to have those dreams dashed by “bully boards” who run the community as if it is their fiefdom, shouldn’t somebody care?

---

If, when living in one of these HOAs a homeowner does not obey the governing documents, known as CC&Rs, they will be warned, then fined. If they don’t pay, their home will receive a lien and eventually, if the fine is still not paid, after heavy added costs, the home might be sold right out from under them. But what about when the BOARD ignores the CC&Rs, shouldn’t somebody care? 

The old expression “money talks and bull s—t walks” seemed to be the order of the day in Henderson last week when residents of Whitney Ranch, a 1,200 home community near the Galleria Mall were ready to converge on city hall for a council meeting to object to a development, that in addition to a fast food drive through, would also demolish their monument signage and entry way to the community as it has been for the past 20 years. At 5pm they were notified by the board president not to bother since the agenda item had been postponed until the July meeting.

Emails had been flying back and forth with representatives of the city all day regarding the fact that the HOA board had no standing to way-in on the monument. That was a CC&R issue, and only a vote of the residents can change that.  The mayor and city council, city attorney, and developer all knew this was a stumbling block….Shouldn’t somebody care?

At 7:00pm when the mayor was told the HOA president was not in attendance, nor was the developer since the item had been postponed, he ordered that they be contacted and asked to return, stating “he would take responsibility” yet neglected to call or contact any of the opposition, although city personnel were aware who some of the speakers for the opposition were and how to reach them. Thus no one was in attendance to speak against the project and it was approved.

When loud objections were raised the next day, the reply was, “well the stipulation was inserted that the city will have approval over any new signage in place of the monument. We suggest the association opposition retain legal counsel.” The city council disenfranchised 1,200 people because they would not wait until the following meeting to allow them the right to speak. Shouldn’t someone care?

What was SO URGENT that the vote had to be held that night?