‘Bully board’ disregarding fair housing, disabilities acts
Bully boards. This is what we affectionately call homeowners associations’ elected boards who think and act without “common sense” in exercising their official duties.
I have lived in an HOA for over 10 years. Our 1996 organization document (nor has any subsequent correspondence) addressed compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. I informed the HOA board that I am a Veterans Affairs-rated disabled woman veteran and also have age-related disabilities. I requested a reasonable accommodation to park my vehicle in an unassigned, open parking slot with occasional parking in my driveway to load and unload.
The HOA board is “stuck” on parking and ignoring the obvious. In several notices the board labeled my vehicle:
1) for commercial/business use
2) as a bus/van
3) as a recreational vehicle
4) as a vehicle in excess of a 1-ton load capacity. Finally, the board has declared my 2003 Dodge Sprinter as a nuisance and required removal from the property immediately.
I provided Department of Motor Vehicles and proof of insurance that this vehicle is for pleasure and personal use. I asked for a reasonable accommodation under Title III, Community Associations of the ADA Act of 1990; the ADA regarding accommodations for military service members; the Fair Housing Act; and the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 regarding condominiums. I did not demand to resize the unit garage nor for a designated disabled parking space near my unit.
Nevada statutes supported by ADA case law requires the HOA board to avoid enforcing the governing documents that are inconsistent and discriminate against persons with disabilities. As described, my request is a minor concession, at no cost to the HOA or others.
Long ago I agreed with the concept of homeowners associations, not anymore. Similar to Communism’s theories, reality can be a nightmare for the homeowner who gives up so many property rights by membership in an HOA with a “bully board.”
Spanish Steps Lakeside —Park View Estates HOA
Buchanan interchange needed from Interstate 11
I, for the life of me, cannot see why our community would deny access from Interstate 11 to Buchanan Boulevard. The actual cost of both segments of the bypass is close to $100 million under the engineering cost estimate of Interstate 11. In other words, the Regional Transportation Commission has over $100 million to add to the construction of the two segments of the bypass, making the interchange at Buchanan a reality.
A bypass around a small community like Boulder City is a huge incursion into our reality. One only has to travel in Arizona to see what Interstate 40 did to small communities when Route 66 was bypassed by I-40.
In speaking to professionals who deal with these issues continuously, there is no one I have found who thinks it’s a good idea to avoid placing a full interchange at Buchanan Boulevard and Interstate 11. In other words, we have a chance to correct our mistake as a small city before it is too late. We also have a chance to do the right thing for Boulder City and its business community.
Why is it we do not take the opportunity to do that in the context that our business community is being threatened by a lack of continuous traffic through the city? I know, having been a mayor and council member in the city, that this is a huge change to our future.
I support a full interchange at Buchanan Boulevard because I care about our city remaining a community in the context of Southern Nevada.
I do not want to see us lose our businesses. That is what is likely to happen in the next three years when the bypass opens and traffic is diverted from our roads.
I welcome an open dialogue about the subject in the context that we finally have an actual election in Boulder City.
We didn’t have that two years ago. We weren’t able to discuss the issues concerning Boulder City since we didn’t have an election two years ago.
Get the facts before determining a position on issue
As with many things in life, ignorance is a choice. Last week’s letters to the editor made that point giving us, as the saying goes, “the long and the short of it.” Ms. (Roxanne) Dey’s glowing defense of Councilman (Cam) Walker ran on for 870 words, nearly three times the 300-word limit imposed on other letter writers. Mr. (Matt) DiTeresa took a scant 56 words, 20 percent of the allotted limit, to opine that empathy and understanding are the answer. I place a premium on understanding what is going on around me, though in my experience, knowing the facts can as easily cause outrage as empathy.
With a bit of effort you can understand the law and cases that come before the courts. I recently obtained a copy of the lawsuit Tom Finn, the former chief of police, filed against the city in federal court. I believe it paints a truer picture of Councilman Walker than Ms. Dey does, and also of his colleagues on the City Council. I could excuse myself from the matter by stating that I did not vote for any of the people whom Finn is suing. While that is true, it would not diminish the sense of shame I feel from the fact that many of my neighbors did.
I have to ask why I am not reading about Finn’s lawsuit in my local paper. I would also like to know why the city paid Councilman (Rod) Woodbury’s former law partner to defend the lawsuit brought by the six remaining initiative sponsors instead of turning the matter over to the insurance pool the city belongs to. Before you can empathize you must understand, and before you can understand you must first know the facts. To proceed otherwise is to embrace ignorance and all of its associated evils.
Walker’s role is to represent entire council on board
I want to thank Roxanne Dey for her recent letter to the Boulder City Review in which she outlined the factual and historically accurate account of the proposed phased replacement at Boulder City High School. I hope it clears up the misinformation that has been circulating around our town and unnecessarily alarming students and teachers.
Although Ms. Dey was very clear about Councilman (Cam) Walker’s indispensable role throughout this process, I would also like to underscore that Councilman Walker was representing the entire City Council on the Community Education Advisory Board and would routinely report at the council meetings what was happening with respect to the Clark County School District.
Recently, he brought architectural renderings and explained in detail the proposed changes in the new high school and how students and teachers could be impacted. Those renderings are still on display at City Hall.
While we all serve on many different boards and committees, I want to thank Councilman Walker for his conscientious approach to this issue and for his tireless advocacy on behalf of the students, parents, teachers and administrators who will benefit from the next phase of our new high school, not only in the near future but for years to come.